Reported / Citable
Background
Avery Frank Bass, Jr. filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. On June 18, 2026, the court ordered Bass to show cause within 45 days why the motion should not be dismissed for failing to satisfy Rule 2(b)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
The court warned Bass that noncompliance could result in denial of his motion without further notice. Bass did not respond by the deadline. Although the court’s show-cause order was returned as undeliverable, the court concluded that Bass remained responsible for keeping his address current and complying with its order.
The Court’s Holding
Judge David Hittner denied Bass’s § 2255 motion and dismissed his civil § 2255 proceeding based on Bass’s failure to comply with the show-cause order. The court relied on its authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability. Because the dismissal rested on a procedural ground, the court concluded that reasonable jurists would not find its procedural ruling debatable.
Key Takeaways
- A § 2255 petitioner must comply with court orders, including orders requiring a response to cure pleading deficiencies.
- Returned mail does not excuse a litigant’s duty to maintain a current address with the court.
- A procedural dismissal may be accompanied by denial of a certificate of appealability where the ruling is not reasonably debatable.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that post-conviction relief proceedings remain subject to procedural requirements. Petitioners who do not respond to court directives risk dismissal of their collateral attacks without a ruling on the underlying sentencing claims.