Pleasant v. United States of America, No. 3:2020cv00575 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/5/2020. (Copy mailed to Petitioner) (smej, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. United States of America Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. Civil Action No: 3:20CV575 Criminal No. 3:00CR71 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on December 28, 2018, the Court denied Jeffrey A. Pleasant's successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that had been authorized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("Successive § 2255 Motion"). United States v. Pleasant, No. 3:00CR71, 2018 WL 6834358, at *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2018). On July 29, 2020, the Court received from Pleasant a motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) ("Rule 60(b) Motion").i In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Pleasant contends that the December 28, 2018 Judgment denying his Successive § 2255 Motion is void because, although he invoked the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 2255, he used a form for seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As discussed below, Pleasant's Rule 60(b) Motion is simply frivolous. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Following a jury trial, Jeffrey A. Pleasant was convicted of two counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence. ^ The Clerk filed Pleasant's Rule 60(b) Motion as a new civil action because Pleasant did not list his criminal action number on the 60(b) Motion. Instead, he indicated that he wished to have the 60(b) Motion processed as a new civil action. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
