Kendrick v. Unknown, No. 3:2019cv00898 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 1/22/2020. Copy to Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kendrick v. Unknown Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:19CV898-HEH UNKNOWN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a letter to the Court complaining about an alleged denial of access to the courts with respect to filing fees in state court and about errors in his state criminal prosecution and his state habeas proceedings. (ECF No. 1.) On December 13, 2019, the Court explained that it would not conduct a general inquiry into his state court prosecution or interfere with the state court's collection of filing fees. The Court explained that, instead. Plaintiff must identify a violation offederal or constitutional law. Because it was not clear from Plaintiffs submissions whether he wished to pursue a civil rights action challenging the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court sent him both forms. The Court directed Plaintiff, within fifteen(15) days ofthe date of entry thereof, to complete and return one ofthe two forms. The Court warned that a failure to complete and return the appropriate form within that time would result in dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Dockets.Justia.com More than fifteen (15) days have elapsed and Plaintiff has not responded. Plaintiffs disregard ofthe Court's directives warrants dismissal ofthe action. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Richmond, Virginia 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.
