Frederick Banks v. Donald J. Trump

710 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 2, 2018 · No. 17-7368

Summary

This unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion affirms the district court's dismissal of Frederick Banks's action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The district court construed the action as a Bivens claim and also found that any habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was barred for failure to exhaust available remedies. The appellate court concluded the exhaustion holding was correct and affirmed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Motz; Keenan; Hamilton
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 2, 2018
Docket number
17-7368
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. The district court dismissed the action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, construing it as a Bivens action, and also held that to the extent Banks sought release from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he failed to exhaust available remedies.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Frederick Banks v. Donald J. Trump; Ivanka Trump; Jeff Sessions; Steve Bannon; Paul Ryan; Mitch McConnell; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Schumer; Dr. Cahill; Dr. Allissa Marquez; Dr. Logan Graddy; Dr. Heather Ross; Dr. Robert Wettstein; Judge Mark Hornak; Robert Cessar; Adrian Roe; Christopher Asher Wray; Scott Smith; Robert Werner; Sean Langford; Felicia Langford; Joy Flowers Conti; Nora Fischer; Cathy Bissoon; Mike Pompeo; Central Intelligence Agency; Governor of North Carolina; Governor of Pennsylvania; Mike Pence; Supreme Court of the United States; John Roberts; US Marshal Service; United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefappellate procedurecivil procedurewaiver

Practice areas

Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedurePost-Conviction Relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in holding that Banks failed to exhaust available remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Holdings

  1. The district court's exhaustion holding was correct.

Factual background

Frederick Banks, a prisoner, filed a pro se action against numerous federal and state officials and entities, which the district court construed as a Bivens action and dismissed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. To the extent Banks sought release from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the district court found he failed to exhaust available remedies. Banks appealed only the exhaustion holding.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed Banks's action under the PLRA, construing it as a Bivens action, and further held that any § 2241 claim was barred for failure to exhaust available remedies. Banks appealed only the exhaustion holding.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…