GAW v. WARDEN

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina
DecidedMarch 14, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00146
StatusUnknown

This text of GAW v. WARDEN (GAW v. WARDEN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GAW v. WARDEN, (M.D.N.C. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RYAN GAW, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV146 ) WARDEN, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, submitted a Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenges the calculation of his current sentence by the United States Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner did not submit an in forma pauperis application, pay the applicable filing fee, or use the proper form for his Petition. The Petition can be dismissed without prejudice for these reasons. Moreover, a § 2241 action challenging the execution of the sentence of a petitioner in physical custody within the United States, the petition should be filed in the district court of the district where the petitioner is in custody. See Kanai v. McHugh, 638 F.3d 251, 255 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47 (2004)). The Court notes that Petitioner is incarcerated at LSCI Butner which is located in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Therefore, Petitioner’s request should be dismissed without prejudice to him filing his Petition in the district where he is confined. He may request the § 2241 forms from the Clerk’s Office in that district. The address for the Clerk is: 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 574, Raleigh, NC 27601. In forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation of dismissal without prejudice to filing a new petition in the proper district.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed sua sponte

without prejudice to Petitioner filing in the proper district. This, the 14th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Joe L. Webster United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Kanai v. McHugh
638 F.3d 251 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GAW v. WARDEN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaw-v-warden-ncmd-2025.