Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 3:2014cv00783 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/17/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )

Download PDF
Pleasant v. Clarke Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JUL I 7 2015 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COU8T RICHMOND. VA JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:14CV783 HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, this Court convicted Jeffrey A. Pleasant of two counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence, two counts of carrying relation to a crime of violence, a firearm possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pleasant, 31 F. App'x sentenced Pleasant to Memorandum Opinion and 91, 622 92 (4th Cir. months Order of States v. Pleasant, 2003), ECF Nos. 93-94. for a Writ Petition"). 2015, the frivolous of Habeas No. in and one count of See United States 2002). The Court Id. imprisonment. entered Court denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. United and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, v. during on § April 22, 2003, By the 2255 filed by Pleasant. 3:00CR71 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, Pleasant then filed the present Petition Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 22, Court attempt dismissed by the Pleasant § 2254 to Petition challenge as his another federal Dockets.Justia.com convictions. 1 On June 4, 2015, the Court received from Pleasant a motion seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (e) ("Rule 59 (e) Motion") . The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit "(1) to law; (2) to or (3) to recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59 (e) : accommodate an account for correct a intervening new clear Hutchinson v. (D. F.R.D. Md. 625, 626 in controlling evidence not available error law or Staton, of 994 (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. 1419 change 1991); F.2d v. Atkins (S.D. Miss. at prevent 1076, Marathon 1990)). 1 manifest 1081 Koppers Co., v. trial; 7 71 injustice." (4th Cir. 1993) F. Supp. 14 0 6, LeTourneau Co., 130 Pleasant apparently relies In his § 2254 Petition, Pleasant sought to challenge several criminal cases from the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. (§ 2254 Pet. at 2 (citing CR00-362-F, CR00-363-F, CR00-364, CROO-F-1026, CROO-F-1027, CROO-F-1028)). Pleasant, however, attached to his § 2254 Petition an order from the Circuit Court reflecting that the Commonwealth's Attorney withdrew the indictments for the above referenced cases and "would not be presenting such charges to the grand jury." (Id. Ex. A, at 1.) As such, Pleasant failed to coherently articulate how he is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" with respect to the criminal cases listed in his § 2254 Petition. 28 U.S.C. 2254 (a). Thus, the action appeared to be another frivolous attempt by Pleasant to challenge his federal convictions. See Pleasant v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:12CV731, 2014 WL 3 5 3 4 0 5 , at * 1 n . 2 ( E . D. Va . Jan . 2 8 , 2 0 14 ) ( dismissing a § 2 2 4 1 Petition by Pleasant that purported to challenge some of these same state criminal cases) . Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on April 16, 2015, the Court directed Pleasant to show cause, within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof, why the action should be not dismissed. Pleasant failed to file a timely response to that Memorandum Order, and the Court dismissed the action. 2 upon the third ground. Pleasant, however, fails to demonstrate that the dismissal of his action rested upon a clear error of law or that vacating that dismissal Accordingly, manifest injustice. (ECF No. 11) will be denied. is necessary to prevent a Pleasant' s Rule 59 ( e) Motion The Court will deny a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. Isl Richmond, Virginia Date: fC_U Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge 3

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.