Francis v. Brooks
Opinion
Edghill Leo Francis seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a motion arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that the claims Francis seeks to raise cannot be pursued under § 2241. Because Francis has previously filed a motion seeking relief under § 2255, see United States v. Francis, No. 99-6042, 1999 WL 147849 (4th Cir. Mar.18, 1999) (unpublished), however, he must seek authorization from this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) prior to filing a successive motion under § 2255. Because Francis has not received this authorization, the district court properly dismissed his motion without prejudice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.
DISMISSED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edghill Leo FRANCIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- Status
- Unpublished