Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al, No. 3:2015cv00224 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 5/13/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Petitioner. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GREGORY E. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ^ 3:15CV224 al. , Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Gregory E. se, has Richardson, Virginia prisoner proceeding pro submitted this action under 42 U.S.C. amassed an extensive litigation. No. a See 3:07CV514, Richardson's at history Richardson 1-7 litigation (E.D. in v. Va. this of § 1983.^ frivolous Va. Dec. district Dep^t Richardson and abusive of Corr., 9, 2008). is subject Thus, to the following pre-filing injunction; 1. only Absent a bona fide emergency, the Court will one action at a time from process Richardson If .... Richardson action is will be files a new action while another pending before the Court, the new action filed and summarily dismissed without ^ The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dockets.Justia.com prejudice. If an action is transferred or removed to this Court while another action is currently pending before the Court, the new action will be filed and summarily dismissed without prejudice. Richardson may dismiss a pending action to expedite another that he wishes the Court to consider. action Such dismissal, however, will be with prejudice if a responsive pleading or motion has been filed. 2. Richardson may not simultaneously litigate multiple challenges to his current custody in state and federal courts. U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b); 28 3. Richardson is precluded from writing on both sides of any submission. 4. All petitions for writs of habeas corpus and civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be submitted on the standardized forms, which may be obtained from the Clerk of Court. To the extent that Richardson wishes to pursue an action under some other statute than 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 28 U.S.C § 2254, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must identify the statute that authorizes the action at top of the first page of the action and succinctly explain why that statute is applicable. 5. In order to monitor Richardson's repetitious and multiplicitious litigation he must attach to each new complaint or petition a separate document entitled "motion for leave compliance" which to file shall and in certificate separately of number paragraphs: (a) Identify by style, date filed, and current status, all cases filed by him or in which he has been a plaintiff or petitioner within the one year period preceding the of the certificate. Richardson filing shall also identify in which court the case was filed; (b) Certify that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and dismissed with prejudice by any federal court and set forth why each claim could not have been raised in one of his prior federal actions; (c) For any complaint, set forth in separate subparagraphs for each of the defendants the facts relief his that Richardson believes against belief the that defendant such and facts entitle the him basis exist. to for Each subparagraph must, standing alone and without reference to other subparagraphs, exhibits, or attachments, establish that the claim against the defendant is made in good faith, and has tenable basis in fact and is not frivolous; (d) Contain Richardson's statement a under penalty of perjury that the statements made in the certificate of compliance are true. 6. Richardson's failure to comply strictly with the requirements set forth above will result in summary denial of the motion for leave misrepresents any facts to file. If Richardson he will be subject to appropriate sanctions. Richardson v. Va. Jan. 8, Va. Dep't newest requirements set Richardson filing a file a Corr., No. 3:07CV514, at 1-3 (E.D. 2009). Richardson's the of failed 42 U.S.C. civil to filing forth file fails in his to action § 1983 action. comply with pre-filing the strictly injunction. on the standardized form To the extent he intends to action other than pursuant to § 1983, Richardson failed to identify the statute that authorizes the action at top of the first page of the action and succinctly explain why that statute is applicable. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Richardson. . /v Date: ma* fj, Robert E. Payne Richmond, mrginia 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.
