Richards v. Commonwealth

W.D. Virginia

Richards v. Commonwealth

DecidedSeptember 12, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00586

StatusUnknown

This text of Richards v. Commonwealth (Richards v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Commonwealth, (W.D. Va. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

AT ROANOKE, VA FILED September 12, 2025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA *™ ga. Beeson ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK

River Richards, ) Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00586 Commonwealth, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner River Richards, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1.) He contends that he is being wrongfully detained at Southwest Virginia Regional Jail after the judge in his pending criminal proceeding denied a motion to dismiss the charges against him. He states that he has not appealed this ruling because “this habeas corpus is my appeal.” (d. at 3.) Federal courts cannot consider habeas petitions until the claims asserted have been exhausted. See Brown v. Keohane, 475 F. Supp. 943, 944 (B.D. Va. 1979). Exhaustion requires that the issue be presented to the state’s highest court and considered on the merits. O’Sa//ivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-45 (1999). “Put another way, Petitioner cannot directly seek federal court review of a state prison administrative grievance—as a matter of federal law, and based on principles of federalism and comity—without going through the state court system.” Unas v. Soto, No. CV 15-772, 2015 WL 3901653, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2015).

Richards’ Petition states that he has not exhausted any state court remedies, specifying that he neither appealed nor pursued any state court post-conviction proceedings prior to submitting this federal habeas action. (Dkt. 1 at 3-4.)! Therefore, at this time, Richards’ claims are unexhausted and premature for this court’s consideration. His claims must be dismissed without prejudice, preserving his right to refile in federal court after state court exhaustion is complete. Brown, 475 F. Supp. at 944. For this reason, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Richards. ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2025.

HON. JASMINE H. YOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Rivers does reference a purported “appeal” of the Scott County Circuit Court’s ruling to the same Circuit Court. (Dkt. 1 at 5.) However, this does not evidence an appeal to the highest state court level or a state court habeas action as is required for exhaustion. According to the Virginia Courts Case Information website, Richards’ case is pending, he has been denied bail, and the case is set for a trial in October. See □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ (enter Case No. CR25000269-00, then click “Case Number Inquiry”; do the same with Case No. CR25000270-00). -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AT ROANOKE, VA FILED September 12, 2025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA *™ ga. Beeson ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK

River Richards, ) Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00586 Commonwealth, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner River Richards, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1.) He contends that he is being wrongfully detained at Southwest Virginia Regional Jail after the judge in his pending criminal proceeding denied a motion to dismiss the charges against him. He states that he has not appealed this ruling because “this habeas corpus is my appeal.” (d. at 3.) Federal courts cannot consider habeas petitions until the claims asserted have been exhausted. See Brown v. Keohane, 475 F. Supp. 943, 944 (B.D. Va. 1979). Exhaustion requires that the issue be presented to the state’s highest court and considered on the merits. O’Sa//ivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-45 (1999). “Put another way, Petitioner cannot directly seek federal court review of a state prison administrative grievance—as a matter of federal law, and based on principles of federalism and comity—without going through the state court system.” Unas v. Soto, No. CV 15-772, 2015 WL 3901653, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2015).

Richards’ Petition states that he has not exhausted any state court remedies, specifying that he neither appealed nor pursued any state court post-conviction proceedings prior to submitting this federal habeas action. (Dkt. 1 at 3-4.)! Therefore, at this time, Richards’ claims are unexhausted and premature for this court’s consideration. His claims must be dismissed without prejudice, preserving his right to refile in federal court after state court exhaustion is complete. Brown, 475 F. Supp. at 944. For this reason, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Richards. ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2025.

HON. JASMINE H. YOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Rivers does reference a purported “appeal” of the Scott County Circuit Court’s ruling to the same Circuit Court. (Dkt. 1 at 5.) However, this does not evidence an appeal to the highest state court level or a state court habeas action as is required for exhaustion. According to the Virginia Courts Case Information website, Richards’ case is pending, he has been denied bail, and the case is set for a trial in October. See □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ (enter Case No. CR25000269-00, then click “Case Number Inquiry”; do the same with Case No. CR25000270-00). -2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richards v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-commonwealth-vawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack