Masika v. City Of Chesapeake, No. 3:2017cv00542 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/29/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
Download PDF
Masika v. City Of Chesapeake Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division FRANCIS MASIKA, SEP 2 9 20I7 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURl RICHMOND. VA Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV542 CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 2, 2017, Petitioner, a former Virginia inmate proceedingse, submitted a document entitled "Request for Change of Venue." (ECF No. 1.) It was not clear from Petitioner's submission whether he wished topursue a civil rights action challenging the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ora petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given the content of his submission, the Court gave Petitioner the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rivenbarkv. Virginia, 305 F. App'x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on August 24, 2017, the Court directed the Clerk to send both a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form and a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form to Petitioner. The Court directed Petitioner, within fifteen (15) daysof the date of entry thereof, to complete and return either a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition or a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to comply with the above directive would result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Dockets.Justia.com More than fifteen (15) days have elapsed since the entry ofthe August 24,2017 Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. Hannap ^ ^ Date: SEP 2 9 2017 Richmond, Virginia United Statesui^ct Judge