Court Opinion

ID: 9962859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:01:04.191869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:12.637849
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7194      Doc: 5        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7194      Doc: 5         Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 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