Daniel Rodriguez v. Warden Janson, No. 23-6702 (4th Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6702 DANIEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Daniel Rodriguez, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JANSON FCI EDGEFIELD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01893-HMH) Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024 Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Angel Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Angel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rodriguez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Rodriguez sought to challenge his conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 only if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See also Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023) (noting that a federal prisoner may only seek relief by way of § 2241 when “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as [] challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rodriguez v. Warden Janson FCI Edgefield, No. 1:23-cv-01893-HMH (D.S.C. filed June 28 & entered June 29, 2023). We grant Rodriguez’s motion for an extension of time. 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. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.