ARRINGTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Dismissing Case for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 10/5/2017. (km)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KHARY SHERIFF ARRTNGTON,
Civil Action No. 16-8206 (PGS)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Pro se Petitioner Khary Sheriff Arrington, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, seeks to file a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
The Court administratively terminated the case on November 15, 2016, due to Petitioner’s failure
to comply with Local Civil Rule 81.2. ECF No. 2. Presently before the Court is a letter from
Petitioner seeking status on the matter. ECF No. 9.
However, to date, Petitioner never complied with the Court’s November 15, 2016 order.
Petitioner has not submitted an amended
§ 2255 motion on court-approved form, as directed by
the Court in its order. Although Respondent filed an answer to the
§ 2255 motion without the
Court’s prompting, that does not alleviate Petitioner’s responsibility to comply with this Court’s
order. Indeed, in the interim, Petitioner filed another
§ 2255 motion in Arrington v.
No. 17-2638 (D.N.J. filed Apr. 18, 2017), which the Court dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.
See Id., ECF Nos. 2 & 3. Because Petitioner did not comply with the Court’s November 15, 2016
§ 2255 motion in the instant matter has now become a second and successive motion,
which requires permission from the Third Circuit before it can be filed here. See 28 U.S.C.
2255(h), 2244(b)(3). As such, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant motion.’
IT IS therefore on this
ORDERED that the Clerk shall REOPEN the case by making a new and separate docket
entry reading ‘CIVIL CASE REOPENED”; it is further
ORDERED that the Motion is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and it is
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order upon
Petitioner by regular mail, and shall CLOSE the file.
Peter G. Sheridan
United States District Judge
Even if Petitioner asserts that the motion he filed Case No. 17-2638 was really meant as an
amended motion in the instant matter, that motion, of course, has already been ruled upon and
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?