In re: Robert Ardis

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 2026
Docket26-1378
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: Robert Ardis (In re: Robert Ardis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Robert Ardis, (4th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1378 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1378

In re: ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Michael Ardis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-1378 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Michael Ardis, a Florida prisoner, petitions this court for a writ of habeas

corpus, seeking immediate release from state custody. We dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction. *

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the

Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their

respective jurisdictions.” But that statute “does not similarly confer jurisdiction on courts

of appeals.” Dragenice v. Ridge, 389 F.3d 92, 100 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Instead, “it confers jurisdiction on ‘any circuit judge within their respective

jurisdictions.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). So “while a single circuit judge may

entertain a habeas petition, courts of appeals may not.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We

therefore lack jurisdiction over Ardis’s habeas petition. And although we may transfer the

petition to an appropriate district court, we conclude that transfer is not “in the interest of

justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b).

We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED

* Ardis also moves for immediate release and for a hearing. In light of our dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we deny those motions as moot.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Robert Ardis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-ardis-ca4-2026.