Smith v. Virginia Parole Board

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division WARREN SMITH, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:25¢ev726 VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus naming the Virginia Parole Board and Patricia West as Respondents. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner seeks an order from this Court “compelling [Respondents] to provide Petitioner with the desired Parole Board investigation results and find that the Board acted in a manner that was intentional and willful when denying Petitioner the Board’s investigative results.” (ECF No. 1, at 3 (capitalization and punctuation corrected).) Petitioner fails to identify a procedural vehicle that authorizes the action he seeks.! Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. /n re Gurley, 247 F. App’x 437, 438 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)). Therefore, the action will be DISMISSED as frivolous and failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: (013095 □□□ Richmond, Virginia United States DiStrict Judge ' Petitioner cites the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) as a means to obtain the investigative report. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) However, Plaintiff may not bring a FOIA complaint against a state agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1) (‘Agency [under FOIA] means each authority of the government of the United States... .”)