Summary
noting Jones held a petitioner cannot use § 2241 to mount a successive collateral attack on validity of a federal sentence and affirming district court's dismissal of § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Hampton v. JosephOpinion
22-6208
07-06-2023
FRED HALL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. HUDGINS, Respondent - Appellee.
Fred Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 27 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00134-GM)
Fred Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fred Hall appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hall's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857, 2023 WL 4110233, at *7-9 (U.S. June 22, 2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal sentence), we conclude that Hall cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order dismissing Hall's § 2241 petition. 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