Akil Bey v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999262206-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01001-TSE-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345921]. Mailed to: Akil Bey. [13-7759]

Appeal: 13-7759

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7759

AKIL RASHIDI BEY, ex rel. Aikido Graves,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
DETENTION CENTER,

PRINCE

WILLIAM-MANASSAS

ADULT

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01001-TSE-TCB)

Submitted:

April 8, 2014

Decided:

April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akil Rashidi Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7759

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Akil Rashidi Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s
October

9,

2013,

order

dismissing

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

without

prejudice

his

28

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

After reviewing Bey’s handwritten petition, the district court
issued an order on September 26, 2013, directing Bey to submit
an amended petition and either pay the filing fee or apply to
proceed in forma pauperis.

The order also warned Bey of the

consequences of failing to comply with the court’s order.
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (1989).

See

When that order

was returned as undeliverable, the district court concluded that
Bey failed to notify it of a change of address, failed to comply
with its September 26 order, and dismissed the action without
prejudice.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

the

court’s September 26 order was mailed to an incorrect address,
the origins of which are not known.
that

Bey

should

be

given

an

We conclude, therefore,

opportunity

to

comply

with

the

court’s order and pursue in a § 2254 proceeding those claims
that, but for the district court’s addressing error, could have
been further developed before the district court.

Accordingly,

we grant Bey leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the
October 9 dismissal order, and remand the action for further

2

Appeal: 13-7759

Doc: 11

proceedings.

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3