Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07069/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7069

DARREL R. FISHER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00470-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: December 17, 2024

Before GREGORY, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrel R. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7069 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrel R. Fisher is civilly committed at Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) Butner 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. Fisher filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the Eastern 

District of Virginia challenging his civil commitment. The magistrate judge issued an 

order directing Fisher to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction, explaining that Fisher must name his warden as respondent and seek habeas 

relief under § 2241 in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where he is confined. Fisher 

filed a response stating that the warden is the respondent and contending that he was 

seeking habeas relief in a different jurisdiction because the Eastern District of North 

Carolina is corrupt. Finding that Fisher’s response failed to establish grounds to permit the 

court to consider his § 2241 petition, the district court dismissed the action without 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.*

 Fisher timely appeals. For the reasons 

that follow, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand for further 

proceedings.

Section 2241(a) provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the 

Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their 

respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). “A habeas petitioner who is physically 

confined must name [his] ‘immediate custodian’ as the habeas respondent, and must file 

the habeas petition in the ‘district of confinement,’” that is, “the location of both the habeas 

* The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court 

dismissed the petition without granting leave to amend, expressly stating that it was a final, 

appealable order. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7069 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

petitioner and the immediate custodian.” Kanai v. McHugh, 638 F.3d 251, 255 

(4th Cir. 2011).

The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “within their respective jurisdictions” 

in § 2241(a) as “requir[ing] nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have 

jurisdiction over the custodian.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction within the 

meaning of § 2241(a) does not refer to the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court. 

Id. at 434 n.7. Rather, “the question of the proper location for a habeas petition is best 

understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or venue.” Id. at 451 (Kennedy, J., 

concurring). “Thus, although the decision in Padilla did not resolve the precise nature of 

the restriction that the language of § 2241(a) places on the filing of habeas petitions, a 

majority of the Supreme Court plainly rejected a subject-matter jurisdiction analysis in that 

case.” Kanai, 638 F.3d at 257. Accordingly, dismissal of Fisher’s § 2241 petition for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction was erroneous.

For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the case to the 

district court for further proceedings. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7069 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 3