PIERCE v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DARYL PIERCE, 1:16-cv-5107-NLH

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

Daryl Pierce, 05620-067 FCI Cumberland PO Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501 Petitioner pro se

Diana V. Carrig, Assistant United States Attorney Office of the US Attorney US Post Office Building 401 Market Street, 4th Floor Camden, NJ 08101 Attorneys for Respondent

HILLMAN, District Judge WHEREAS, Petitioner Daryl Pierce filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his federal sentence based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), see ECF No. 1; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to compel asking the Court to order Respondent to answer the petition in conformance with the terms of Standing Order 16-2 that set briefing schedules for all cases raising claims under Johnson, see ECF No. 5; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017, the Court ordered Respondent

United States to answer the petition, see ECF No. 6; and WHEREAS, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment on January 9, 2018 arguing that Respondent had failed to answer the petition, see ECF No. 14. Respondent had filed a motion to dismiss the § 2255 petition on July 17, 2017, see ECF No. 12. The motion to dismiss was denied, but Respondent was given permission to file a second motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 21; and WHEREAS, Respondent filed a second motion to dismiss on May 7, 2018, see ECF No. 22. Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion on June 8, 2018, see ECF No. 24. He filed his response on June 14, 2018,

see ECF No. 25; and WHEREAS, the Court has since denied the second motion to dismiss and ordered Respondent to file a full and complete answer to the § 2255 petition, see ECF No. 27, THEREFORE, IT IS on this 29th day of October, 2019 ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to compel (ECF No. 5), motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 14), and motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 24), are dismissed as moot; and it is further ORDERED that this Order has no impact on Respondent’s time to answer the § 2255 petition; and it is finally ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of

this Order on Petitioner by regular first-class mail. s/ Noel L. Hillman At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.