You're viewing Docket Item 2 from the case Richardson v Commonwealth of Virginia. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-00275-REP Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

GREGORY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:13CV275

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gregory Richardson, a Virginia detainee proceeding pro se,

submitted

this

action.

Richardson

has

amassed

an

extensive

history of frivolous and abusive litigation.

See Richardson v.

Va.

Dep't of

Corr.,

No.

3:07CV514,

at

1-7

{E.D.

Va.

Dec.

9,

2008).

Thus,

Richardson's

litigation

in

this

district

is

subject to the following pre-filing injunction:

1.

Absent a bona fide emergency, the Court will
from

action

time

one

at

a

only
Richardson ....

process

If

files

a

new

action

Richardson

while
another action is pending before the Court,
the
new action will be filed and summarily dismissed
without prejudice.
If an action is transferred
or removed to this Court while another action is
currently
new
dismissed
action
without
a
pending action to expedite another action that he
wishes the Court to consider.
Such dismissal,
however,
will be with prejudice if a responsive
pleading or motion has been filed.

Court,
summarily

Richardson

prejudice.

pending

dismiss

before

filed

will

may

the

be

the

and

2.

Richardson may not

current
multiple
state
See
§ 2244(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

challenges
federal

his
to
courts.

and

simultaneously litigate
in
U.S.C.

custody
28

Case 3:13-cv-00275-REP Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 7

3.

4.

5.

Richardson is precluded from writing on both

sides of any submission.

the

from

obtained

All petitions for writs of habeas corpus and
civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 must
be submitted on the standardized forms, which may
the
be
extent that Richardson wishes to pursue an action
§ 2241,
under some other statute than 28 U.S.C.
28
§ 1983,
he must
identify the statute that authorizes the action
and
at
of
succinctly
is
applicable.

action
statute

page
why

of
that

U.S.C §

explain

U.S.C.

first

or 42

Court.

2254,

Clerk

the

the

top

of

To

In order to monitor Richardson's repetitious
and multiplicitious litigation he must attach to
each
separate
document entitled "motion for leave to file and
certificate
in
separately number paragraphs:

compliance"

complaint

petition

which

shall

new

or

of

a

(a)

(b)

c)

date filed,

and current
Identify by style,
status,
all cases filed by him or in which
he has been a plaintiff or petitioner within
the one year period preceding the filing of
the
also
identify in which court the case was filed;

certificate.

Richardson

shall

new

claims

Certify that the claims he wishes to present
are
and
dismissed
federal
court and set forth why each claim could not
have been raised in one of his prior federal
actions;

prejudice

raised

before

never

with

any

by

in

set

any

forth

relief

complaint,

For
separate
subparagraphs for each of the defendants the
facts that Richardson believes entitle him
to
the
basis for his belief that such facts exist.
standing alone and
Each subparagraph must,
without
subparagraphs,
exhibits, or attachments, establish that the

reference

defendant

against

other

and

the

to

Case 3:13-cv-00275-REP Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 8

claim against the defendant is made in good
faith,
and has a tenable basis in fact and
is not frivolous;

(d)

Contain Richardson's statement under penalty
of perjury that the statements made in the
certificate of compliance are true.

6.

Richardson's failure to comply strictly with
the requirements set forth above will result in
summary denial of the motion for leave to file.
If Richardson misrepresents any facts he will be
subject to appropriate sanctions.

Id. at 7-9.

Richardson's latest submission does

not comport with the

above prefiling injunction.

Richardson already has an action

pending,

Richardson

v.

Superintendent

Piedmont

Reg'l

Jail,

No. 3:13CV249 (E.D. Va.), and fails to demonstrate any bona fide

emergency.

Richardson has also failed to comply with paragraphs

4 and 5 of the injunction.

Accordingly,

Richardson's action

will

be

FILED

and

this

action

will

be

dismissed

without

prejudice.

The Clerk is

DIRECTED to send a copy of the Memorandum

Opinion to Richardson.

fcjfi

Date:

\L/'L$(7jl>l'$

Richmond, Virginia

/s/

ftcfl

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge