William Hampton v. Federal Correctional Complex ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6890
WILLIAM DOUGLAS HAMPTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; ERIC D. WILSON, Warden;
MAURICE DANZEY, Associate Warden; L. HUMPHREY, Recreation
Supervisor; R. SPEARS, Education Supervisor; R. HUTCHINGS,
Associate Warden; D. DICOCCO, Health Services
Administration; M. REYNOLDS, Director of Psychology; P.
HILLETEWORK, Mid-Level Practitioner; S. HARRIS, Legal
Administrator; A. LEWIS, Associate Warden; K. KIDDY, Unit
A/B Manager,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00464-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: September 10, 2015 Decided: October 5, 2015
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William Douglas Hampton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Douglas Hampton appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to present evidence. The district
court construed Hampton’s motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition and dismissed it because the relief Hampton sought was
not cognizable under § 2241. While the district court’s legal
analysis regarding § 2241 was correct, we conclude from our
review of the record that Hampton was attempting to file his
motion as part of his ongoing declaratory judgment action, *
rather than as a new § 2241 action. We therefore grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s order,
and remand with instructions to strike the § 2241 action, No.
1:15-cv-00464, from the district court’s docket after
transferring all of Hampton’s motions to the docket of his
pending declaratory judgment action, No. 1:15-cv-00318. We
express no opinion regarding the merits of the latter case. We
deny as moot all of Hampton’s motions filed in this court,
including his motions for declaratory judgment, for discovery,
to enjoin, to raise a judicial question, to present exhibits,
and to present government grievances. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
See Hampton v. Fed. Corr. Complex Petersburg, No. 1:15-cv-
00318-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va.).
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
3