2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-25-2015

Peter James v. District Attorney York County

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This February 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 2015 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

"Peter James v. District Attorney York County" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 215.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/215
BLD-110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3887

___________

PETER A. JAMES,

Appellant

v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY YORK COUNTY;

DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA;

THOMAS DECKER, Director for Detention;

SUPERINTENDENT HUNTINGDON SCI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 13-cv-05619)

District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 12, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 25, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Peter James appeals from the District Court’s order denying his habeas petition 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because no substantial question is raised by the 

appeal, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

A federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a petition filed pursuant to § 2241 

only if the petitioner is “in custody.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989); VerdeRodriguez v. Att’y Gen., 734 F.3d 198, 204 n.4 (3d Cir. 2013). James was confined in 

the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, a part of the Philadelphia Prison System, at 

the time he filed his habeas petition. The petition alleged that he was being illegally 

confined pursuant to detainers issued by York County and the Immigration Customs 

Enforcement agency (“ICE”), even though he had posted bail in his criminal case, and an 

Immigration Judge had granted him release on bond. The Magistrate Judge assigned to 

the case recommended denying the petition because James was not in custody pursuant to 

the detainers at the time he filed his petition, but was instead in custody for his state 

criminal conviction.1 In his objections, James argued, among other things, that he should 

be able to challenge the ICE detainer2 because he would be subject to ICE custody once 

his criminal sentence is completed. But an immigration detainer, which simply gives a 

 

1 At the time he filed his petition, his direct criminal appeal was pending. The judgment 

of conviction since has been affirmed on appeal, see Commonwealth v. James, No. 2389 

EDA 2013 (Aug. 19, 2014).

2

It appears that the York County detainer is also based on the possibility of ICE 

detention. 
3

prison notice that ICE is interested in the prisoner, is not sufficient to establish “custody” 

for purposes of § 2241. See Zolicoffer v. Dep’t of Justice, 315 F.3d 538, 540-41 (5th Cir. 

2003).

Because James was not in custody pursuant to the detainers at the time he filed his 

§ 2241 petition, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.3 We will 

thus affirm the District Court’s judgment.4 

 

3 At the time James filed his petition, he was in custody pursuant to his state criminal 

conviction, but it does not appear that he was attempting to challenge that conviction. In 

any event, he could not have challenged his conviction in his petition, as the conviction 

was still pending on appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); and § 2241 is not the proper 

vehicle for challenging a state criminal conviction, see Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 

484-85 (3d Cir. 2001).

 

4

James’s pending motions, including his motion for release, are denied.