Keyon Riddick v. Herlock, No. 13-6194 (4th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 3, 2013.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6194 KEYON RIDDICK, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HERLOCK, Mr. Director of Security; JO HONG, Correctional Officer; FAUX, Mr. Correctional Officer, Defendants Appellees, and CHAN, Correctional Officer; JUSTICE, Correctional Officer; WITTAKER, Correctional Officer/Sergeant; RAY, Correctional Officer; MAILS, Correctional Officer/Sergeant, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01240-TSE-TRJ) Submitted: November 14, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 4, 2013 HAMILTON, Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Senior Keyon Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Lee Brinson Warren, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Keyon Riddick appeals the district court s August 23, 2013 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with an order directing that he file an affidavit as to his exhaustion of administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the action on January 25, 2013, for failure to submit an affidavit of exhaustion. On July 3, 2013, we remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Riddick had placed his exhaustion affidavit in the prison mailing system. In response to our remand, the district court ordered Riddick to determining fill out whether a his new exhaustion original affidavit affidavit was rather timely than filed. When the district court s order was returned because Riddick had been relocated to another prison, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice on the ground that Riddick had failed to keep the court apprised of his current address. In so doing, the district court acted beyond the scope of our limited remand. [W]hen this court remands for further proceedings, a district court must, except in rare circumstances, implement both the letter and spirit of the mandate, taking into account our We note that Riddick has now updated the district court with his current address, but has not moved to reopen the case. 3 opinion and the circumstances it embraces. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir. 1993)) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Because the district court exceeded the scope of our remand, we return the case to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to make a factual determination as to whether Riddick timely placed his exhaustion affidavit in the prison mailing system. The record, as supplemented by the district court s findings, will then be returned to this court for further review. Accordingly, we vacate the district court s August 23, 2013 order court s dismissing January 25, Riddick s 2013 order case, reinstate pending further the district review, and remand for the limited purpose outlined above. VACATED AND REMANDED 4