James-Bey v. Stancil

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 MOTION to Dismiss and AMEND. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/6/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nvc)

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
1:13-cv-183-FDW

TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Pro se Motion to Dismiss and Amend
(Doc. No. 5), filed on January 4, 2016, in which Petitioner seeks to “perfect and resubmit these
matters for reconsideration.” Petitioner’s motion will be denied as non-justiciable and moot
because this Court already dismissed this action without prejudice on July 15, 2013, finding that
this action was duplicative of another petition filed by Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See
(Doc. No. 3). That action is still pending and has been stayed pursuant to Petitioner’s own motion
to stay so that he could exhaust his state remedies. See James-Bey v. Stancil, 3:13cv386
(W.D.N.C.). Petitioner complains in the motion filed in this case that the Court has taken no action
as to his other § 2254 petition. However, the Court’s Order in the other action specifically
instructed that “Petitioner shall promptly notify the Court when he has exhausted stated remedies
and file a motion to lift the stay.” (Id., Doc. No. 5). If Petitioner wishes to move to lift the stay
in that action, he should file a motion to lift the stay in the other pending action.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1

1. Plaintiff’s Pro se Motion to Dismiss and Amend, (Doc. No. 5), is DENIED.

2