In re: Tarun Vyas

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1377 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1377 In re: TARUN KUMAR VYAS, Petitioner.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 Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2