In re: Tarun Vyas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 25-1377
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1377 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1377

In re: TARUN KUMAR VYAS,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 25, 2025

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tarun Kumar Vyas, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1377 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tarun Kumar Vyas, a Virginia prisoner, petitions this court for a writ of habeas

corpus. In his initial and supplemental petitions, he seeks the vacatur of his state

convictions and immediate release from state custody. Although we grant Vyas’s motion

for a minor correction of his petitions, we deny his motion to expedite as moot, deny his

remaining motions, and dismiss the petitions 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 Vyas’s original habeas petitions. And although we may

transfer the petitions to the 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 petitions 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.

PETITIONS DISMISSED