Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re: William Bailey, 17-2403 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2403 Visitors: 38
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2403 In re: WILLIAM M. BAILEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William M. Bailey has filed an original petition for
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 17-2403



In re: WILLIAM M. BAILEY,

                    Petitioner.



                         On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 2, 2018


Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William M. Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       William M. Bailey has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

challenging the legality of his state court convictions and seeking release. This court

ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from this practice. Moreover, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer