Pleasant v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al, No. 3:2014cv00266 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/25/2014. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner on 11/26/2014.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. HAROLD W. 3:14CV266 CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jeffrey pro se, A. Pleasant, brings this a former Virginia 28 U.S.C. § 2254 inmate ("§ 2254 proceeding Petition"). Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2014, dismissed Pleasant's 622-month federal U.S.C. § 3:12CV731, In that claimed that his omitted) (internal of never the resolved . Court for . the . marks Circuit Court inter alia, 364-F.'" at Id. the *1 Court n.2 of ." CR00-362-F, (third explained 28 v. Va. six The to Court noted challenge the CR00-363-F[, Pleasant felony (citation Richmond alteration that *1 2014). Pleasant state at of 28, that (6) Id. City Cuccinelli, Jan. noted wishe[d] the his unauthorized omitted). "represent[e]d that he the (E.D. the Court challenging Pleasant at *l-2 arrest quotation petition successive, See with respect to, Nevertheless, 2241 a Opinion, "state [was] decisions as 2014 WL 353405, Memorandum Pleasant § motion. offenses that U.S.C sentence 2255 No. 28 By in and] . CR00- original). "fail[ed] to Dockets.Justia.com specify how these cases resulted in a present restraint upon his liberty" and Commonwealth dismissal Court that had of with his submissions withdrawn his § 2241 those indictments. petition, post-conviction demonstrated Pleasant motions that the Since the inundated the Id. has challenging his federal convictions and state charges. Pleasant's instant which judgment he § 2254 identify Pleasant the states fails to seeks to challenge or that he pursuant to that judgment. must petition is in custody Under the section where a petitioner judgment "N/A," demonstrate for and the sentence name and he is location challenging, of the court that entered the judgment of conviction, and "N/A none" for both the judgment of Pleasant conviction and his identifies that "[t]he sentence. Richmond into custody on January 24, 2000 for robberies and related further provides offenses intends of on to March 6, also he fails fails to City [allegedly] offenses . . . Pet. Police 2.) took me committing two ." (Id.) He "the Circuit Court dismissed the alleged 2000." challenge offenses Richmond, Pleasant that firearms (§ 2254 to (Id.) in To the extent the Circuit Court identify demonstrate a judgment that these and cases Pleasant of the City conviction. resulted in the present restraint on his liberty. Accordingly, the Court directed by Memorandum Order entered October 15, Pleasant to show cause within eleven 2014, (11) days of the date of entry hereof as to why his § 2254 motion should not be demonstrate dismissed for that he is failing to in identify a judgment or custody pursuant to that judgment. Pleasant has responded. In a rambling response, Pleasant contends that "the Court has ordered me to show cause instead of the Respondent. There is nothing in the Rule nor the Advisory Committee Notes which shows that I should be ordered to show cause why my § 2254 should not be dismissed for any reason after it is examined by the . judge corrected) Courts, . . ." (Response 2, ECF No. 4 (capitalization (citing Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. District Rule 4).) Pleasant those raised in his § 2254 then repeats arguments similar to Petition about being charged in the City of Richmond courts and detained in the Richmond City Jail. Again, Pleasant fails to identify a judgment and conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond that resulted in the present restraint demonstrate good on his cause liberty. As such, and § 2254 his Pleasant petition fails to will be dismissed. Pleasant's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 6) will be denied. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA") . 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional requirement is right." satisfied debate whether (or, should have issues presented been for 28 only that resolved were proceed further.'" when a agree different 'adequate to that) the manner or deserve Pleasant satisfy 463 U.S. this 880, This jurists could petition that encouragement Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Estelle, to § 2253(c)(2). "reasonable matter, in (quoting Barefoot v. fails U.S.C. to 484 (2000) 893 & n.4 standard. the (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. /s/ Robert E. Richmond, Virginia Date: Ml&Ufo 2</ tOtf fee Payne Senior United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
