Bullock v. Dismukes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-cv-01022-MR
JAMAL BULLOCK, )
)
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by
Jamal Bullock (herein “Petitioner”) on December 22, 2025. [Doc. 1]. Also
before the Court is the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed
the same date. [Doc. 3].
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. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 148-4 (2023). Accordingly, Leslie Cooley Dismukes, the current Secretary
of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (“NCDAC”), is now the proper
Respondent.
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina.2 The
Petitioner was convicted in Mecklenburg County Superior Court December
20, 2004, on two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon and one count
of felonious breaking and entering. [Doc. 1-1 at 1]. The state court continued
Petitioner’s sentencing hearing for these convictions to January 5, 2005.
[Id.]. On January 5, 2005, Petitioner’s three convictions were consolidated
for purposes of sentencing, and he received an active 82 to 108 month term
of imprisonment. [Id.]. Also on January 5, 2005, the Petitioner sustained two
additional convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which were
consolidated for purposes of sentencing, and he received a second active
82 to 108 month term of imprisonment consecutive to his first such sentence.
[Id.]. For purposes of this Order, the Petitioner’s five convictions for which
he was sentenced on January 5, 2005, will be referred to as Petitioner’s “First
Mecklenburg County Judgments.”
On March 14, 2005, the Petitioner was convicted in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court of two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon
and two counts of second-degree kidnapping. [Doc. 1-1 at 1]. Each robbery
2 See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=
0708943&searchOffenderId=0708943&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersea
rchresults&listpage=1(herein “NCDAC Database”); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 8

3
conviction was consolidated with one of the kidnapping charges for
sentencing purposes and the Petitioner received two consecutive active
sentences of 107 to 138 months. [Id. at 1-2]. For purposes of this Order, the
Petitioner’s four convictions for which he was sentenced on March 14, 2005,
will be referred to as Petitioner’s “Second Mecklenburg County Judgments.”
The sentences imposed in the Second Mecklenburg County Judgments
were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in the First
Mecklenburg County Judgments. [Id. at 2]. The Petitioner filed no direct
appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals from any of his convictions or
sentences contained in any of his Mecklenburg County judgments.3 The
Petitioner has completed serving his time for every sentence contained in his
Mecklenburg County judgments, the last of such sentences expiring on
March 8, 2024. NCDAC Database at 3.
On June 30, 2005, the Petitioner was convicted in Onslow County
Superior Court of one count of second-degree murder and one count of first-
degree burglary. NCDAC Database at 3. The Petitioner’s two convictions
3 On his § 2254 petition form, the Petitioner checked the box indicating that he did file a
direct appeal with regard to some of his Mecklenburg County cases. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Upon
closer inspection, however, it appears the Petitioner was mistaken as those form entries
reference post-conviction Motions for Appropriate Relief the Petitioner filed with the
Mecklenburg County Superior Court. [Id.]. Further, a check of the North Carolina Court
of Appeals on-line docketing system discloses no record of Petitioner filing a direct appeal
from any of his cases contained in any of his Mecklenburg County judgments.
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 8

4
were consolidated for purposes of sentencing, and he received an active 305
to 375 month term of imprisonment (herein the “Onslow County Judgment”).
[Id.]. The Petitioner is presently serving this term of imprisonment and has
a projected release date of August 1, 2029. NCDAC Database at 1.
The Petitioner filed three post-conviction Motions for Appropriate Relief
(“MAR”) in the Mecklenburg County Superior Court. According to the state
trial court, “[Petitioner] filed a MAR October 5, 2012, which was denied.”
[Doc. 1-1 at 2]. The Petitioner sought certiorari review of his first MAR denial
in the North Carolina Court of Appeals which denied such review on February
27, 2013. Bullock v. State, No. P13-122 (N.C. App. 2013). “[Petitioner] filed
a second MAR February 10, 2023, claiming his Prior Record Level was
calculated incorrectly. It was denied.” [Doc. 1-1 at 2]. The Petitioner sought
certiorari review of his second MAR denial in the North Carolina Court of
Appeals which denied such review on June 28, 2023. State v. Bullock, No.
P23-298 (N.C. App. 2023). Petitioner filed a third MAR on January 5, 2024,
which was denied January 23, 2024. [Id. at 1-2]. The Petitioner sought
certiorari review of his third MAR denial in the North Carolina Court of
Appeals which dismissed such request “due to unreasonable delay” on July
8, 2025. State v. Bullock, No. P23-298 (N.C. App. 2025).
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 8

5
The Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court
on December 22, 2025, contesting only the Second Mecklenburg County
Judgments. [Doc. 1]. In his single ground for relief, Petitioner asserts a Sixth
Amendment violation. Petitioner claims that the state trial court erroneously
calculated his Prior Record Level by including a previous uncounseled
misdemeanor conviction, for which he received active jail time, that
enhanced his sentencing range for his convictions contained in the Second
Mecklenburg County Judgments. [Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 2 at 6].
II. DISCUSSION
In reviewing a § 2254 petition, this Court is guided by Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which directs the district courts 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.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), a federal district court may only entertain
an application for writ of habeas corpus if the applicant is “a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court[.]” Id. The Petitioner in
this matter is indeed an applicant, however, he is no longer in custody
pursuant to any of the convictions contained within the Second Mecklenburg
County Judgments, the judgments presently under attack. The last prison
sentence Petitioner served under the Second Mecklenburg County
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Judgments expired March 8, 2024, nearly two years before the Petitioner
commenced this action. See, Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989)
(holding that a habeas petitioner does not remain “in custody” under a
conviction after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because
that prior conviction could be used to enhance the sentences imposed for
any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted). Accordingly, the Petitioner
is not “in custody” under any of the Second Mecklenburg County Judgments4
and the Court, therefore, is without subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.
Because the Petitioner’s specifically challenged state court judgments
have terminated, Petitioner’s instant action challenging the now-expired
sentences contained within the Second Mecklenburg County Judgments
would provide him with no relief and therefore this action must be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will dismiss the Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and this action.5 Further, based on Petitioner’s Affidavit in
4 The Petitioner vehemently asserts that he is challenging only the Second Mecklenburg
County Judgments. “In light of Meck. Co error in the prior-record level designation in
turned caused Onslow Co. to error as well there for their determination was solely based
off of Meck. Co., but Petitioner is NOT bringing the errors of Onslow Co. before this Court
at this time.” [Doc. 2 at 7 (errors uncorrected)].
5 While the Court is dismissing this action on jurisdictional grounds because the Petitioner
is no longer in custody pursuant to his challenged state court judgments, the § 2254
petition appears to be subject to dismissal on a different jurisdictional ground as well,
namely its untimeliness. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 3], and his Inmate
Trust Account Statements [Doc. 4], the Court is satisfied that Petitioner is
indeed indigent and should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. The
Court will grant Petitioner’s IFP motion. Finally, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court will decline to issue a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 338 (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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 DISMISSED
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 3] is
GRANTED.
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 7 of 8

8
3. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to substitute Leslie
Cooley Dismukes as the Respondent in this action.
5. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: March 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01022-MR Document 6 Filed 03/05/26 Page 8 of 8