Kafeiti v. Hijar

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 7, 2024
• Docket: 24-50242
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50242 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-50242 FILED October 7, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Charles Kafeiti,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

S. Hijar, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CV-463 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Charles Kafeiti, federal prisoner # 23566-509, appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend that

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50242 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2024

No. 24-50242

judgment. See Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 867 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2017) The district court’s dismissal of his petition for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice constitutes a final, appealable decision. See Graham v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 762, 774 (5th Cir. 1999); see also D & J Invs. of Cenla, L.L.C. v. Baker Hughes, 52 F.4th 187, 195 (5th Cir. 2022). We review the dismissal of the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). To collaterally challenge his conviction under § 2241, Kafeiti must satisfy the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) by showing that “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). Because Kafeiti has failed to make that showing, the district court correctly dismissed his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451-55. Moreover, in this court, Kafeiti has not briefed any challenge to the district court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to that ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Kafeiti’s motions for various relief are DENIED.