James Faller, II v. Jennifer Saad, No. 18-6597 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6597 JAMES S. FALLER, II, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00048-IMK) Submitted: September 11, 2018 Decided: October 18, 2018 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Faller, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James S. Faller, II, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Faller has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court lacked jurisdiction over Faller’s petition, id., and we therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify the district court’s order, Faller v. Saad, No. 1:17-cv-00048-IMK (N.D.W. Va. May 10, 2018), to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). * We deny Faller’s motion to seal, but order that the affiant’s name and identifying information be redacted from the appendices. 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 AS MODIFIED * Faller has petitioned this court to hear this appeal en banc. The court denies the petition. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition. 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.