2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-25-2007

Russell v. Levi

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3967

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Russell v. Levi" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1211.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1211
BLD-93 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-3967

________________

JAMES A. RUSSELL,

 Appellant

 v.

TROY LEVI, Warden;

ALBERTO GONZALES,

Attorney General

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-02643)

District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson

_______________________________________

Submitted For Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 5, 2007

Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 25, 2007)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

James Russell, awaiting trial on a federal charge of mailing a threatening

communication, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
1

Russell also submitted a letter to the District Court, noting that his criminal case

was pending in the District of New Jersey. In response, the District Court amended its

first opinion to note that Russell’s criminal prosecution proceeded in the District of New

Jersey. The District Court determined that the location of the prosecution did not affect

the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 

2

the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In his petition to

challenge his indictment as “void ab initio,” he plainly stated that he was incarcerated in

the Federal Detention Center located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He did not identify

the court in which he would be tried. 

Because Russell was being held in custody in Philadelphia, within the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania and outside the District of New Jersey, the District Court

dismissed Russell’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court concluded that it

could not transfer Russell’s petition because Russell had not identified the district court of

his prosecution, and noted that Russell could bring his claim at any stage of his federal

criminal proceedings. Russell filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court

denied.1

 Russell appeals and moves for summary action on his appeal.

We deny Russell’s motion for summary action, but we will summarily affirm the

District Court’s order because no substantial question is presented on appeal. See Local

Rule 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court, sitting in the District of New Jersey while

Russell was sitting in prison in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, lacked jurisdiction

over Russell’s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d

Cir. 1994) (“A district court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction is territorially limited and
3

extends only to persons detained and custodial officials acting within the boundaries of

that district.”); but see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440-41 (2004) (describing a

possible departure from the ordinary rule in circumstances different from those in this

case, namely a prisoner transfer after proper filing).

Russell, who submitted argument in support of his appeal, claims that the District

Court erred by not transferring his petition to the appropriate district court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1631. The determination whether a case should be transferred in the interest of

justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, “is generally committed to the discretion of the District

Court in the first instance.” See Island Insteel Sys. v. Waters, 296 F.3d 200, 218 (3d Cir.

2002). The District Court was within the bounds of its discretion in this case. Although

Russell later apprised the District Court of the location of his prosecution, he did not

include the pertinent information in his petition. Furthermore, as the District Court noted,

Russell can advance his “void ab initio” claim at any stage of his criminal proceedings.

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.