UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:19-cv-417-FDW

FAITH HODGEPATH, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER SUDAN, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________ ) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on remand from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitioner Frederick Bank filed a pro se “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

, 2242, 18 U.S.C. 3332; and

(f) to Disclose FISA Electronic Surveillance.” (Doc. No. 1). This Court dismissed and denied relief. (Doc. No. 5). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the denial of § 2241 and directed that the § 2241 petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioner was a federal pretrial detainee at the relevant time. See Banks v. Republic of Sudan,

(4th Cir. 2020). The Fourth Circuit affirmed in all other respects.

In accordance with the Fourth Circuit’s mandate, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2004) (under § 2241, jurisdiction “lies only in one district: the district of confinement.”). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to issue a certificate of 1 appealability. See

(c)(2) (a certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”); Miller— El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right).

Signed: November 9, 2020

Frank D. Whitney é United States District Judge Ags