Jenkins v. United States of America, No. 3:2018cv00268 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 1/21/2020. Copy to Jenkins as directed. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jenkins v. United States of America Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANTHONY ANTONIO JENKINS, Petitioner, y Civil Action No. 3:18CV268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a former federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition, Petitioner asserts that his sentence as a career offender is illegal because he lacks valid predicate felony offenses to enhance his sentence. (ECF No. 1, at 6-7 (as paginated by CM/ECF).) Since the filing of his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner has been released from custody and is, therefore, no longer serving the sentence that Petitioner attacks in his § 2241 Petition. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on December 13, 2019, the Court directed Petitioner, within eleven (11) days ofthe date of entry hereof, to show cause why the present action should not be dismissed as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna,523 U.S. 1,10(1998); Wallace v. Jarvis,423 F. App'x 328,328(4th Cir. 2011)(citations omitted). The Court explained that a failure to file a proper response would result in the dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Tbe Court also indicated that Petitioner appeared to no longer be interested in litigating his § 2241 Petition since he had not contacted the Court since his release. Dockets.Justia.com More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the December 13, 2019 Memorandum Order, and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Roderick C. Young Date: January 77 ,2020 Richmond, Virginia United States Magistrate Judg
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
