Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
22-6678•Thomas Walker Labuwi, Ii v. ERIC BRADLEY, Warden
22-6678Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21.03.2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6678
THOMAS WALKER LABUWI, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC BRADLEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02210-FL)
Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Walker Labuwi, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Walker Labuwi, II—a federal prisoner who was convicted and sentenced
in the Eastern District of North Carolina but who is presently incarcerated in the Northern
District of West Virginia—filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the North Carolina district
court, which the court denied. A district court may only grant habeas relief within its
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43
(2004). Because Labuwi is incarcerated in the Northern District of West Virginia,
jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition lies in that district—not in the district court below.
See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442-44.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to
determine whether transferring Labuwi’s § 2241 petition would serve the interest of justice,
see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), 1631, or whether the petition is more appropriately dismissed
without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.