IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-cv-00579-MR

REGINALD LINDSEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES1, ) Secretary, North Carolina ) Department of Adult Correction, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to

, by Reginald Lindsey (herein “Petitioner”) on August 4, 2025. [Doc. 1]. Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Amend his petition he filed on August 27, 2025. [Doc. 2].

1 Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires that “the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody” of the petitioner. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In North Carolina, the Secretary of the Department of Adult Correction is the custodian of all state inmates. See

(2023). Accordingly, Leslie Cooley Dismukes, the current Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, is now the proper Respondent. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a former prisoner of the State of North Carolina. The

Petitioner was convicted in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on April 28, 1992, based upon his no contest pleas to one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon

with intent to kill. [Doc. 1-3 at pp. 458-59]. Petitioner received a consolidated sentence of ten years imprisonment suspended for five years, and five years of supervised probation. [Docs. 1-2 at 126; 128; 1-3 at 101]. The Petitioner filed no direct appeal. On October 20, 1995, Petitioner was admitted to the

North Carolina Department of Public Safety to serve his sentence. [Doc. 1- 1 at 109]. Petitioner was thereafter released on parole March 10, 1999, and ultimately terminated from parole on August 10, 1999. [Id.].

The Petitioner filed a post-conviction Motion for Appropriate Relief (“MAR”) in the Mecklenburg County Superior Court on December 19, 2023. [Doc. 1-1 at pp. 134-61]. By order filed February 1, 2024, the Mecklenburg County Superior Court denied Petitioner’s MAR. [Id. at 129-32]. The

Petitioner sought certiorari review of his MAR denial in the North Carolina Court of Appeals which denied review on August 7, 2024. [Doc. 1-3 at 13]. The Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on

August 4, 2025, raising four constitutional claims sounding in due process violations (Grounds One, Three, and Four) and ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Ground Two). [Doc. 1 at pp. 5-12].

II. DISCUSSION A federal district court may only entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus under

if the applicant is in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a state court.

The Petitioner in this matter is indeed an applicant, however, he is no longer in custody pursuant to the judgment of the state court about which complains. Petitioner’s sentence for his Mecklenburg County convictions expired on March 10, 1999, when he was

released from custody to begin his parole term, and his state court judgment for said convictions terminated on August 10, 1999, when his parole came to an end.

In reviewing a § 2254 petition, this Court is guided by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which directs the district court to dismiss a petition when it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Because the Petitioner’s state court judgment has terminated, Petitioner’s instant action challenging the now-expired Mecklenburg County convictions would provide him no relief and therefore must be dismissed. III. CONCLUSION The Court will deny the Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus [Doc. 1] and dismiss this action. Further, given the termination of this action, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition [Doc. 2] as moot. Finally, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, this Court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right). O R D E R IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED.

2. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to substitute Leslie Cooley Dismukes as the Respondent in this action. 4. The Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition [Doc. 2] is DENIED as moot. 5. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: September 29, 2025

Martifi Reidinger ey Chief United States District Judge “AES