Martin v. Strauss et al, No. 7:2015cv00527 - Document 7 (W.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 10/28/2015. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin v. Strauss et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION JERRY LOVELACE MARTIN, JR., Plaintiff, v. JUDGE CHARLES STRAUSS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:15cv00527 By: Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION Jerry Lovelace Martin, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Martin alleges that he wrote to “Judge Charles Strauss” and attorney Jeffrey R. Fox, asking to see his “motion of discovery,” but they said he could not see it. Martin also alleges that he wrote to attorney James Ghee and “Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew Freedman” “for all [his] papers and motion of discovery,” but they said he “was not allowed.” Martin states that he “want[s] to file for due process of the law,” and, as relief, he asks the court to modify or reduce his unspecified sentence. However, it is well settled that an inmate’s sole federal remedy to request a speedier release from custody is a properly-filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78-82 (2005) (summarizing the distinctions between § 1983 and habeas actions). Accordingly, the court will dismiss Martin’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim.1 Entered: October 28, 2015. Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge 1 While the court has a duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), the court declines to construe Martin’s complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it does not comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). 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.
