Franklin Antonio Rios v. Warden Janson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7194
FRANKLIN ANTONIO RIOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JANSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:23-cv-04222-DCN)
Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin Antonio Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Antonio Rios, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Rios’ 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition, in which he sought a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is
unconstitutionally vague. The magistrate judge found that Rios, who had previously filed
an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, could not pursue his challenge to § 924(c) in a
§ 2241 petition or by way of a declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. On
appeal, Rios argues that the magistrate judge erred in finding that he could not proceed
under § 2201. However, as a prisoner, Rios lacks Article III standing to bring a declaratory
judgment action to determine the validity of a claim that could be raised in a future habeas
proceeding. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746-47 (1998). Accordingly, we
conclude that the magistrate judge properly found that Rios could not obtain relief under
§ 2201. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Rios v. Warden Janson, No. 8:23-
cv-04222-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2023). 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --