Pleasant v. Pixley, No. 3:2016cv00416 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 09/14/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. Pixley Doc. 3 p p 1 j1 1 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SI:P 1 5 20^G FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA -u T"" Richmond Division CLEh.s U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. WENDELL W. 3:16CV416 PIXLEY, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed numerous frivolous attempts to challenge his state and federal writ convictions. of habeas Pleasant now submits corpus pursuant to 28 this petition for U.S.C. § Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, dismissed a challenging prior his unauthorized Cuccinelli, 28 No. Jan. 28, that Pleasant was felony Court U.S.C. In claimed because that 2241 2255 2014 federal "state never (internal Pleasant as motion. WL at Opinion, "Project arrest for . quotation "represent[ed] a . Pleasant the Exile . marks that Pleasant successive, *1-2 the By- the Court by See 353405, resolved 2 014, petition sentence Memorandum his his [was] omitted) noted that § federal § 3:12CV731, offenses (citation U.S.C 622-month 2014) . invalid 28 2241. (E.D. Court Va. noted (6) Id. state at omitted). he v. prosecution" six ." a wishe[d] *1 The to Dockets.Justia.com challenge the Richmond 363-F[, . decisions . . and] of the with respect CR00-364-F. original). The Circuit to, Id. Court Court inter alia, at *1 n.2 explained that of the City of CR00-362-F, CROO- {third alteration in Pleasant ''fail [ed] to specify how these cases resulted in a present restraint upon his liberty" and that his submissions demonstrated Commonwealth had withdrawn those indictments. In addition Pleasant has to the inundated the with the Id. above-described Court that § 2241 petition, post-conviction motions challenging his federal convictions and state charges. Noting a history of frivolous and abusive filings by Pleasant, the Court explained that "[f]rom this point forward, review any new state charges matter what Va. April conviction or in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, no Pleasant "Certificate Pleasant v. action of labels the Compliance" Clarke, 21, challenging No. 2015). federal action. Pleasant containing 3:15CV218, The his before the Court will must" certain 2015 WL 11110959, Court explained that file a components. at *2 (E.D. Pleasant's failure to comply with those directives would result in summary dismissal of the new action. Pleasant action; filed however, it a is (Id.) Certificate evident of that Compliance he once in the instant again attempts to challenge his state arrests and the dismissed indictments in the Circuit Court explained, in the for the City of Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, judgment and conviction that restraint on his liberty." § [A] s previously to the extent Pleasant intends to challenge offenses identify a upon Richmond.^ which he can Id. at *1. challenge he fails resulted in a to present Pleasant offers no basis dismissed state charges under 2241. Additionally, Pleasant, any convictions, attempt no successive, "[a]s the Court has explained ^ unauthorized 857 insist defects {7th Cir. that in his his construed as United States authorized motion, a label, 28 2004) . federal will U.S.C. To § of Court the 28 his entertain the as motion." Petition motion. Fourth 359 F.3d because is to of properly Because Circuit has successive Pleasant's a Id. continues unlawful 2255 criminal dismissed Pleasant are § for be United States, 2241 U.S.C. Appeals to § federal 2255 extent convictions prosecution, Court his see also Melton v. successive this challenge the matter (citations omitted); 855, to nauseam to § the not 2255 this portion of the action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. ^ Pleasant states Petitioner ['] s . . . restraint {§ 2241 Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.) that is his ''[t]he Jan. 24, subject 2000 of arrest." An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a (^^COA"). 28 unless a a judge issues a U.S.C. § prisoner makes constitutional requirement is whether should have issues presented (or, been for only that to U.S.C. when COA will not issue a 'adequate Estelle, satisfy agree different to the manner or 880, standard. could petition that encouragement 529 U.S. 463 U.S. This jurists that) deserve McDaniel, this § 2253(c)(2). ''reasonable matter, in Slack v. (quoting Barefoot v. fails 28 resolved were A "a substantial showing of the denial of right." proceed further.'" Pleasant 2253(c)(1)(B). satisfied debate certificate of appealability 893 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a COA will be denied. Pleasant's request to proceed m forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be denied as moot. The Clerk is to directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. It is so ORDERED. /S/ i Date: Richmond, Virginia /U/ Robert E. Payne Senior IMited 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.
