David Meyers v. Warden Allenwood USP, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. CLD-164

Case: 13-4388

Document: 003111523808

Page: 1

CLD-164

Date Filed: 02/03/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-4388
___________
DAVID MEYERS,
Appellant
v.

WARDEN ALLENWOOD USP;
U.S. ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 1-13-cv-01630)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 30, 2014
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 3, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
David Meyers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At the time
he filed the petition, Meyers was incarcerated at Riverside Regional Jail in Hopewell,

Case: 13-4388

Document: 003111523808

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/03/2014

Virginia. Meyers named as respondents to his petition, inter alia, a prison official
associated with the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. In his
petition, Meyers sought review of past sentence calculations and credits. The District
Court dismissed Meyers’ petition after determining that he named the wrong respondent
and filed his petition in the wrong jurisdiction. Meyers appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). In our review of
the District Court’s order dismissing the § 2241 petition we “exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its
findings of fact.” O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005). We may
summarily affirm if the appeal does not present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR
27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
We conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed Meyers’ petition. “[F]or
core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only
one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004).
Accordingly, “[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present
physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and
file the petition in the district of confinement.” Id. at 447. Jurisdictional issues related to
a prisoner’s custody are determined as of the date the habeas petition is filed. See Leyva
v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007); Chong v. Dist. Dir., INS, 264 F.3d 378,
382-83 (3d Cir. 2001). At the time Meyers filed his petition, he was not confined within
the Middle District of Pennsylvania and none of the respondents were his warden.
Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Meyers’ petition.
2

Case: 13-4388

Document: 003111523808

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/03/2014

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal presents no substantial question and we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247
(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

3