Perry v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2020cv00847 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus). Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 12/17/2020. (asho, )

Download PDF
Perry v. Commonwealth of Virginia Doc. 3 Case 3:20-cv-00847-HEH-EWH Document 3 Filed 12/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ALBERT L.PERRY, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:20CV847-HEH COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus) Albert L. Peny,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 19I5A. 1. PRELIMINARY REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act("PLRA")this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner ifthe Court determines the action(1)"is frivolous" or(2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory," or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clayv. Yates, 809 F. Supp.417,427(E.D. Va. 1992)(quoting v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,327(1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00847-HEH-EWH Document 3 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 55 11. ANALYSIS Perry was convicted in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County of murder and possession of a firearm. (ECF No. 1—1,4—7.) Perry "is asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Virginia Supreme Court directing them to vacate the two void ab initio sentences that violate the United States Constitution that he has been confined by unlawfully for over 10 years." (ECF No. 1, at 3.) This Court, however, lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or state agencies. Gurley v. Superior Court ofMecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587(4th Cir. 1969);Islam v. Va. Supreme Court,No. 3:07CV418, 2007 WL 3377884, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13,2007)(citation omitted). Thus,the Court cannot grant Perry the relief he desires. Accordingly, Perry's Petition will be dismissed. Given the nature ofthe relief sought, it is appropriate to consider whether to recharacterize this mandamus petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rivenbark V. Virginia, 305 F. App'x 144, 144 n.* (4th Cir. Dec. 30,2008)(citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 311(2003); United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 132-35(4th Cir. 2008)). This Court previously has denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition by Perry challenging his murder conviction. Perry v, Virginia, No.3:13CV327-HEH,2013 WL 4590619, at *5(E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2013). Perry is therefore required to obtain permission to file a second petition fi*om the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to challenge his murder conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Unless and until Perry does so, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 375 (4th Cir. 2004). Moreover, given this litigation history it is apparent Case 3:20-cv-00847-HEH-EWH Document 3 Filed 12/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 56 that Perry knew the appropriate vehicle for challenging his cocaine conviction in this Court was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but he intentionally declined to file such an action. Accordingly, no need exists to allow Perry to recharacterize his present action. III. CONCLUSION Perry's Petition(EOF No. 1)will be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. The action will be dismissed. The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition ofthe action for purposes of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Heniy E. Hudson Date:T^g^.\n^^f>ZQ 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.