Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06890/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maurice Danzey
Appellee
D. DiCocco
Appellee
Federal Correctional Complex
Appellee
William Douglas Hampton
Appellant
S. Harris
Appellee
P. Hilletework
Appellee
L. Humphrey
Appellee
R. Hutchings
Appellee
K. Kiddy
Appellee
A. Lewis
Appellee
M. Reynolds
Appellee
R. Spears
Appellee
Eric D. Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6890 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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-cv00318-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va.).

Appeal: 15-6890 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Appeal: 15-6890 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3