Rogers v. Wood , 241 F. App'x 110 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7374
CHARLES GENE ROGERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DON G. WOOD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00269-JAB)
Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: July 11, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gene Rogers, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the
district court’s orders dismissing his action filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration.
We vacate and remand.
In his § 2241 petition, Rogers challenged his convictions
for murder and robbery. He filed the petition in the Middle
District of North Carolina, where he is incarcerated. He was
convicted and sentenced in Wayne County, North Carolina, which is
in the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 113
(2000). The district court dismissed the action upon the finding
that it should have been filed in the Eastern District of North
Carolina.
A state prisoner incarcerated in a state with two or more
judicial districts may file a habeas corpus petition in either the
district of confinement or the district where the defendant was
convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Thus,
under the statute, Rogers’ action was properly filed in the Middle
District of North Carolina. While the district court could have
transferred the petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina,
see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(d) (explaining that a district court, “in
the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,” may
- 2 -
transfer a § 2241 petition to the district of conviction or the
district of confinement), it erred in dismissing the petition.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and
remand. 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
- 3 -