United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner,
WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Respondent.
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge
A. Pleasant, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed
numerous frivolous attempts to challenge his state and
federal convictions. Pleasant now submits this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
By-Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2014, the
Court dismissed a prior 28 U.S.C § 2241 petition by
Pleasant challenging his 622-month federal sentence as a
successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
See Pleasant v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:12CV731, 2014 WL
353405, at *l-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014) . In that Memorandum
Opinion, the Court noted that Pleasant claimed his federal
"Project Exile prosecution" was invalid because his
"state arrest for the six (6) state felony offenses
[was] never resolved . . . ." Id. at *1
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Court noted that Pleasant "represent[ed] that he
wishe[d] to challenge the decisions of the Circuit Court of
the City of Richmond . . . with respect to, inter alia,
CR00-362-F, CROO-363-F[, and] ¶ 00-364-F.'"
Id. at *1 n.2 (third alteration in original). The
Court explained that Pleasant "fail[ed] to specify how
these cases resulted in a present restraint upon his
liberty" and that his submissions demonstrated that the
Commonwealth had withdrawn those indictments. Id.
addition to the above-described § 2241 petition,
Pleasant has inundated the Court with post-conviction motions
challenging his federal convictions and state charges. Noting
a history of frivolous and abusive filings by Pleasant, the
Court explained that "[f]rom this point forward, before
the Court will review any new action challenging his
federal conviction or state charges in the Circuit Court of
the City of Richmond, no matter what Pleasant labels the
action, Pleasant must" file a "Certificate of
Compliance" containing certain components. Pleasant
v. Clarke, No. 3:15CV218, 2015 WL 11110959, at *2 (E.D.
Va. April 21, 2015). The Court explained that Pleasant's
failure to comply with those directives would result in
summary dismissal of the new action. (Id.)
filed a Certificate of Compliance in the instant action;
however, it is evident that he once again attempts to
challenge his state arrests and the dismissed indictments in
the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. * [A] s
previously-explained, to the extent Pleasant intends to
challenge offenses in the Circuit Court of the City of
Richmond, he fails to identify a judgment and conviction that
resulted in a present restraint on his liberty."
Id. at *l. Pleasant offers no basis upon which he
can challenge dismissed state charges under § 2241.
"[a]s the Court has explained ad nauseam to
Pleasant, any attempt to challenge his federal criminal
convictions, no matter the label, will be dismissed as a
successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion."
Id. (citations omitted); see also Melton v.
United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) . To
the extent Pleasant continues to insist that his federal
convictions are unlawful because of defects in his
prosecution, his § 2241 Petition is properly construed
as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not
authorized this Court to entertain Pleasant's successive
§ 2255 motion, this portion of the action will be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of
appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(B). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes
“a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This
requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Pleasant
fails to satisfy this standard. Accordingly, a COA will be
request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)
will be denied as moot.
Clerk is to directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion
 Pleasant states that “[t]he
subject of Petitioner ['] s . . . restraint is his Jan.
24, 2000 arrest." (§ 2241 Pet. ...