Case Name: Ward Everette MOHLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-28
Citations: 30 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 01-7606
Parties: Ward Everette MOHLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
Ward Everette MOHLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2002.
Decided Feb. 28, 2002.
Ward Everette Mohler, pro se.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ward Mohler appeals the district court's order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), in which he sought to raise claims under Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Mohler asserted that he was entitled to proceed with a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) because the latter statute was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." The district court dismissed, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review Mohler's conviction.
The district court's conclusion that it was without jurisdiction seems based, at least in part, on its belief that a motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion was pending in this court at the time of its decision. A review of our records, however, discloses that no such motion was pending at the time. Therefore, we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to review Mohler's claims, and that the district court should proceed to do so in light of our decision in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.2000).
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the decision of the district court dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.