Anne Akers v. Warden

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6828

ANNE CATHERINE AKERS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 23-7141

ANNE CATHERINE AKERS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00502-PX)

Submitted: June 3, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

2

No. 23-6828, dismissed; No. 23-7141, affirmed, by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anne Catherine Akers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Anne Catherine Akers, a former state pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (No. 23-6828) and a subsequent order denying her motion to copy work (No. 23-7141). We dismiss as moot the appeal in No. 23-6828 and affirm in No. 23-7141.

In Appeal No. 23-6828, Akers appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her § 2241 petition, in which she challenged her pretrial detention. Akers was convicted in Maryland state court during the pendency of this appeal. Because Akers is no longer a pretrial detainee, her appeal is moot. See, e.g., Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss the appeal in No. 23-6828 for lack of jurisdiction. 1 In Appeal No. 23-7141, Akers appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to copy work. We confine our review to the issues raised in Akers’ informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Akers’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s finding that Akers failed to show a particularized need for the copy work, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting court’s review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in brief are

1

We note, however, that Akers may challenge her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 now that she has been convicted in state court. But any such challenge would be subject to § 2254’s exhaustion requirements.

4

abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm the appeal in No. 23-7141. We further deny Akers’ motion to seal 2 and motion to appoint counsel.

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.

No. 23-6828, DISMISSED

No. 23-7141, AFFIRMED

2

To the extent that Akers seeks to seal all or any part of the record in the district court, Akers’ motion should be filed in the district court. See 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2).