Kuol v. Hasa
Filing
12
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration re 11 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order Dismissing Case filed by Gabriel Akol Kuol. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 10/19/2015. (slt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
GABRIEL AKOL KUOL,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 7:15cv00167
v.
)
ORDER
NADER MONEEF HASA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge
This matter is before me on Kuol’s motion to reconsider my memorandum opinion and
order dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice
because he failed to comply with the court’s conditional filing order. After the complaint was
dismissed, Kuol submitted the documents required by the conditional filing order. In his current
motion, Kuol asks me to reopen his case because he has now complied with the conditional filing
order. However, Kuol did not comply with the court’s order within the time allotted and I
dismissed his complaint without prejudice to his opportunity to refile his claims in a separate
action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Kuol’s motion for reconsideration (Docket
No. 11) is DENIED. Kuol may refile his claims in a separate action.1
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff.
19th
ENTER: This ____ day of October, 2015.
1
Kuol’s § 1983 complaint alleges that his criminal trial attorney provided him ineffective assistance on
various grounds. Kuol asks the court to order him a new criminal trial. The court notes that Kuol’s claims may be
more properly addressed in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed in the federal
district court that is nearest to the court where the underlying state conviction arose. See Braden v. 30th Judicial
Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497-99 (1973).
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?