Filed: Apr. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1009 In re: SEAGA EDWARD GILLARD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seaga Edward Gillard, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Seaga Edward Gillard, a North Carolina pretrial det
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1009 In re: SEAGA EDWARD GILLARD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seaga Edward Gillard, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Seaga Edward Gillard, a North Carolina pretrial deta..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1009
In re: SEAGA EDWARD GILLARD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seaga Edward Gillard, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Seaga Edward Gillard, a North Carolina pretrial detainee, filed an original petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that, during his pretrial proceedings, North Carolina
officials have violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions, see 28 U.S.C.
ยง 2241(b) (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from that general practice.
Furthermore, we conclude that transferring the petition to the appropriate district court is
unnecessary because Gillard has a nearly identical petition pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. See
id. Accordingly, we deny
Gillard 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