Arnold v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 21, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-00080
StatusUnknown

This text of Arnold v. United States (Arnold v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. United States, (W.D.N.C. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:20-cv-80-RJC 3:05-cr-46-RJC-DSC-2

CURTIS ARNOLD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Petitioner’s unverified Letter that was docketed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he purports to seek relief under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) and United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 428 (4th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff’s conclusory and unverified Petition is insufficient to proceed. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days in which to file a superseding verified Amended § 2241 Petition in accordance with this Order. Although Petitioner is appearing pro se, he is required to comply with all applicable rules including the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires pleadings to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Amended § 2241 Petition will supersede and replace the original § 2241 Petition so that any claims not included in the Amended Petition will be waived. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001). The Amended § 2241 Petition will be subject to all applicable timeliness and procedural 1 requirements. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), (h); Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (discussing relation back). Failure to comply with this Order will probably result in dismissal of this action and closure of this case without further notice. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days in which to file an Amended § 2241 Petition in accordance with this Order. If Petitioner fails to file an Amend § 2241 Petition within the time limit set by the Court, this action will probably be dismissed and the case will be closed. 2. The Clerk is respectfully directed to mail Petitioner a new § 2241 form.

February 21, 2020

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. ew, United States District Judge “ee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Simmons
649 F.3d 237 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Mayle v. Felix
545 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court, 2005)
United States v. Gerald Wheeler
886 F.3d 415 (Fourth Circuit, 2018)
Young v. City of Mount Ranier
238 F.3d 567 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arnold v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-united-states-ncwd-2020.