Mosley v. USA

Filing 46

ORDER re 44 Letter, that to the extent petitioner seeks relief in his Notice such relief is denied, FURTHER ORDERED that the government Answer or otherwise respond to the Petition within 30 days. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 04/01/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00399-MOC
ANTONIO MOSELY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
Vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s “Notice” (#44). The court has carefully
read such “Notice” and determined that petitioner seeks relief therein. Petitioner states that:
the United States NEVER filed any Answer or other response to the Petition that
was on Appeal. This was another stall tactic by the United States to intentionally
delaying their requirement of filing an Answer or other response to Movant 2255
Petition and U.S. Judge Cogburn, Jr. is in cahoot with this buffoonery.
Notice (#44) at 2 (emphasis and errors in the original). Petitioner then states that “Movant Appeal
has been denied for lack of Jurisdiction,” id. (error in the original), and then asks this court to
inform him of the government’s deadline for filing its Answer and to require the government to
“file their Answer or other prespnsive pleading by Certified Mail and Return Receipt.” Id. (errors
in the original).
While petitioner is correct that his first appeal of this court’s Order (#31) allowing the
government additional time to Answer or otherwise respond has been denied, Mosely v. United
States, No. 14-7723 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015), petitioner fails to note that his second appeal, Mosely
v. United States, No. 15-6238 (4th Cir.), which was of this court’s Order (#34) allowing the stay

-1-

pending appeal, was still pending when he filed his most recent motion. Between such filing and
entry of this Order, the appellate court dismissed petitioner’s second appeal.
Both appeals now being resolved, the court will now lift the stay and enter a revised
scheduling Order setting a deadline for the respondent’s Answer or other responsive pleading. The
court will not require the respondent to serve petitioner in any manner other than that required
under Rule 5, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that to the extent petitioner seeks relief in his Notice
(#44), such relief is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government Answer or otherwise respond to the
Petition within 30 days. Within that time period, the government shall also respond to any stillpending motions petitioner may have filed while this matter was on appeal.

Signed: April 1, 2015

-2-