Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2175 In re: CONRAD R. PATTERSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Conrad R. Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Conrad R. Patterson has filed an original petition
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2175 In re: CONRAD R. PATTERSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Conrad R. Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Conrad R. Patterson has filed an original petition f..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2175
In re: CONRAD R. PATTERSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Conrad R. Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Conrad R. Patterson has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking
release from jail and dismissal of an indictment issued in Wake County, North Carolina.
We ordinarily decline to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from this practice. Because Patterson
appears to be awaiting trial in Wake County and has failed to exhaust the remedies
available in the North Carolina courts, we conclude that the interests of justice would not
be served by transferring this case to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b)
(2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
2