Opinion
22-7171
01-20-2023
JARREL LEE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT, Respondent - Appellee.
Jarrel Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 17, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02148-FL-RJ)
Jarrel Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jarrel Lee Johnson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-16 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. The district court dismissed Johnson's § 2241 petition without prejudice because it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ. Proper jurisdiction is in the District of South Carolina, where Johnson is detained. Because Johnson had three pending § 2241 petitions in the District of South Carolina, transfer to that court was unwarranted. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED.