Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 3:2015cv00218 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/21/2015. Copy sent as directed, Yes.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. Clarke Doc. 3 l_L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 I 2015 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT JEFFREY A. 'RICHMOND. VA PLEASANT, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. HAROLD W. 3:15CV218 CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro has filed numerous frivolous attempts to challenge his state and federal convictions. January 28, 2014, By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered the Court dismissed a prior 28 U.S.C § 2241 petition by Pleasant challenging his 622-month federal sentence as a successive, Pleasant v. unauthorized Cuccinelli, No. {E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014). noted that Pleasant 28 U.S.C. 3:12CV731, § 2255 motion. 2014 WL 353405, See at *1-2 In that Memorandum Opinion, the Court claimed his federal "Project Exile prosecution" was invalid because his "state arrest for the six (6) state felony offenses [was] never resolved . . . ." *1 (citation omitted) Court noted challenge Richmond that (internal quotation marks omitted). Pleasant the decisions of . 363-F[, and] . . Id. at "represent[ed] the with respect to, CR00-364-F.'" Circuit that he wishe[d] Court of inter alia, I^ at *1 n.2 The the to City of CR00-362-F, CROO- (third alteration in Dockets.Justia.com original). "fail[ed] Nevertheless, to restraint specify upon demonstrated how his that indictments. the Court these cases liberty" the In explained and resulted that Commonwealth addition to that the in his had Pleasant a present submissions withdrawn above-described those § 2241 petition, Pleasant has inundated the Court with post-conviction motions challenging his federal convictions and state charges. See, e.g., Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 2014); Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 3:14CV144 3:14CV266 (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2 014); United States v. Pleasant, Nos. 3:00CR71, 3:13CV289, 2013 WL 2950522, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2013). Having met with no success with his prior frivolous petitions, Pleasant now attempts a new strategy to attack his federal conviction "NOTICE OF REMOVAL" and state charges. of State case numbers Pleasant brings "CR00003 62F- this through 364F, and CR00F010126 through CR00F01026- through 1027, and Case No. 3:00CR71." (ECF No. 1, at 1.) Pleasant attaches a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus that does not appear to have been filed in state court. (ECF No. 1-1, at 1.) In this "NOTICE OF REMOVAL" Pleasant explains that he seeks to challenge the presumption that "the six (6) state feloney [sic] offenses were dismissed by the Richmond Circuit Court on July 19, 2000." (ECF No. 1, at 2.) As the Court has explained nauseam to Pleasant, any attempt to challenge his federal criminal convictions, no matter the label, U.S.C. § Pleasant, OF will 2255 motion. See 2013 WL 2950522, HEARING MOTION § 2255 motion); 857 be dismissed as {7th Cir. TO a successive, Pleasant, at *1 REMAND" 2014 unauthorized 28 WL 353405, at {dismissing frivolous as see also Melton v. a successive, United States, *1-2; "NOTICE unauthorized 359 F.3d 855, 2004). Moreover, as previously explained, to the extent Pleasant intends to challenge offenses in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, he fails to identify a judgment and conviction that resulted in a present restraint on his liberty. 2014 WL 353405, Pleasant See Pleasant, at *1-2. offers no dismissed state charges, basis upon which he can challenge his federal criminal conviction, or an unfiled state habeas corpus petition in the Court in his "NOTICE OF REMOVAL." Accordingly, Pleasant's "NOTICE OF REMOVAL" will be denied and the action will be dismissed. Because of Pleasant's history of abusive challenging his federal conviction and state charges, filings the Court finds that Pleasant has abused the writ of habeas corpus.^ ^ The Court also notes that Pleasant has at least From two additional pending actions before the Court labeled as a § 2241 petition and a § 2254 petition, that similarly appear to challenge his federal convictions and state charges. See this point forward, before the Court will review any n^ action challenging his federal conviction or state charges in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, no matter what Pleasant labels the action. Pleasant must do the following: Attach to the front of any filing, a document labeled "Certificate of Compliance" that contains: a. A brief summary, not to exceed one (1) b. A certification c. A certification page, explaining why the Court has jurisdiction to consider his current submission; that he challenges a judgment of conviction that results in a present restraint on his liberty; and that the claims he presents are new claims never before raised and set forth could not have been previous action. why each claim raised in his Pleasant's failure to comply with the above directives will result in summary dismissal of the new action. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. /s/ Robert E. Richmond, Virginia Ml- Payne Senior United States District Judge ''on' Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 3:14CV783 {E.D. Va. filed Nov. 18, 2014); Pleasant v." Clarke, No. 3:14CV804 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 26, 2014)
]]>
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.
