Case Name: Richard Jesso BILLUK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard CATERISANO, District Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-03
Citations: 120 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 04-7480
Parties: Richard Jesso BILLUK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard CATERISANO, District Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
Richard Jesso BILLUK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard CATERISANO, District Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7480.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 3, 2005.
Richard Jesso Billuk, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Jesso Billuk seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition for lack of jurisdiction. The § 2241 petition, filed by Redina Perez, Billuk's fiancé seeking to act as his "next friend," seeks to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from deporting Billuk to his native country of Guam. The district court dismissed the action stating that Perez lacked standing, and that she failed to establish her status as Billuk's "next Mend" because she offered no explanation as to why Billuk was unable to file on his own behalf. Billuk now appeals. However, because Billuk was not a party to or an intervenor in the proceeding filed by Perez, he lacks standing to challenge the decision on appeal. Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805, 807 (4th Cir.1999) (holding that a prisoner lacked standing to appeal the district court's dismissal of a habeas petition filed by his wife, acting "on behalf of' her husband). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED