Court Opinion

ID: 9381468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:17.895722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.828884
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678      Doc: 9          Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 2 of 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