Opinion

Serwan Mizori v. R. Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jun 4, 2024
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.3%

holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal conviction or sentence

How later courts described this case

  • holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal conviction or sentence

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6082

SERWAN MIZORI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN R. BROWN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00001-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Serwan Mizori, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Serwan Mizori, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which Mizori sought to challenge his sentence by way of the

savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a

prisoner may challenge his conviction and sentence in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to § 2241 only if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599

U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount

successive collateral attack on validity of federal conviction or sentence), we conclude that

Mizori cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Mizori v. Brown, No. 5:24-cv-00001-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 3, 2024).

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.

AFFIRMED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.