Hines v. Ormond
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that the § 2241 petition, as amended, [Dkts. No. 1, 4] be and hereby is DISMISSED AS MOOT (see Order for further details). Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 2/16/2023. (swil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Shamar Rashi Hines,
Petitioner,
v.
J. Ray Ormond Warden, ,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:18cv526 (AJT/IDD)
MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER
Shamar Rashi Hine~ ("Hines" or "petitioner")~ a fede!al inmate proceeding prose, has filed ·
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hines sought to be resentenced
relying upon United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), stating his May 15, 1995, in
Durham County Sup~rior Court, Durham County, North Carolina, for possession with intent.to
sell or deliver cocaine should no· lbnger count as prior felony drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. §
802(44), and should not have been used to raise the sentencing range for his conviction in Hines
v. United States, Nos. 1:12cv30; 1:0lcr239-1 (M.D.N.C.) (Dec. 13, 2001). By order entered May
17, 2019, this matter was stayed because Hines was seeking the same relief, via§ 2255, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina [Dkt. No. 11]. As a result
of a routine docket review, the Court directed counsel for respondent to provide an update on the
status of this case. [Dkt. No. 12]. Respondent filed a response on February 7, 2023 indicating,
among other arguments, that this matter is moot. [Dkt. No. 13].
The dockets of this Court and that of the original criminal case in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina support the argument that the § 2241 petition is
moot. On May 5, 2020, the Middle District of North Carolina granted Hines's § 2255 petition and
ordered a resentencing. See United States v. Hines, No. 1:01 cr239-1, ECF. No. 197. In an amended
judgment dated May 28, 2020, the Middle District of North Carolina resentenced Hines to 120
months on count one and time :.:j1ved on counts two and three, with four years of supervised
release. Bureau of Prison's inmate .locator shows that Hines was released on May 28, 2020.
In light of Hines' resente~cing and release, it is clear that the present matter is moot. In the
habeas context, the crucial issue with respect to mootness is often whether "some concrete and
continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole" might still be amenable to
remedy. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). In other words, there still may be a case or
controversy before the court- even if the injury that a complaining party seeks to remedy through
litigation no longer exists -
if there is a "collateral injury" that is "likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision." Id (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990)). In his § 2241 petition, _Hines sought to be resentenced. The Middle District of North
Carolina granted his motion to reduce his sentence on May 5, 2020, his sentence was reduced, and
Hines was released from custody on May~28, 2020. Since he has already received the relief that he
is seeking in his§ 2241 petition, his§ 2241 p~tition is moot. See, e.g., United States v. Ketter, 908
F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018)° (citation omitted) (explaining that a case is moot ''when it is impossible
.
.
for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever"). Consequently, there is no more relief that can
be granted.
Since the stay was entered on May 17, 2019, Hines has not updated his address with this
Court or contacted the Court. Tiie Court has examined the docket of the proceedings in North
Carolina and Hines has not contacted that court since he was released on May 28, 2020. On May
10, 2018, the Court entered an order that, in relevant part, required Hines to "immediately" notify
this Court if he was ''transferred, released, or otherwise relocated" and that if he failed to do so
this matter could be dismissed. [0kt. No. 3 at 2]. Another order dated July 6, 2019 contained a
2
similar warning informing Hines that if he failed to immediately notify the Court of his release
that his petition could be dismissed. [Dkt. No. 5].
As a litigant, Hines has a duty to keep the Court informed of his correct address. Toole v.
Norfolk Police Dep 't, No. 2: 16cv468, 2016 WL 10587110, at * 1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2016) (citing
Buxton v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 489 F.2d 754, 754 (4th Cir. 1974) and Rule 7(B) of the
Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia); see, e.g.,
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing a prose plaintiff bears the burden
of maintaining an accurate address of record and a court has no obligation to track down a
plaintiffs whereabouts before dismissing an action for failing to prosecute). In light of Hines
failure to inform the Court of a forwarding address where he can receive the Court's orders, any
subsequent order to update the address or grant an extension of time would be futile as it would be
similarly returned to the Court as undeliverable. Hines cannot be spared dismissal since he himself
is responsible for the Court's inability to notify him. See Mathews v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 176 F.R.D.
442, 445 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (dismissing prose plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to prosecute where
plaintiff's not actually receiving the court order warning of dismissal could "only be attributed
either to plaintiffs deliberate failure to claim the letter, or her failure to advise the court of a change
of address."). Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has abandoned this action.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the § 2241 petition, as amended, [Dkt. Nos. 1, 4] be and hereby is
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
To appeal this decision, petitioner must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk's
office within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A written notice
3
..
of appeal is a short statement indicating a desire to appeal, noting the date of the Order over which
the party seeks review. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal waives the right to appeal this
decision.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58; and to close this civil action.
Entered this 16th day of February 2023.
Alexandria, Virginia
.\nthony J. Tren
Senior United S
4
istrict Judge
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?