2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-30-2005

De La Cruz Disla v. Hogsten

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4488

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

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 2005 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

"De La Cruz Disla v. Hogsten" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 195.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/195
BPS-46

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4488

____________

MANUEL R. DE LA CRUZ DISLA,

 Appellant

 

v.

KAREN F. HOGSTEN, Warden

________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-01857)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

________________________

Submitted For Possible Summary Action

Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 10, 2005

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

(Filed November 30, 2005)

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________

PER CURIAM

Manuel De La Cruz Disla appeals from the District Court’s order denying his

habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas petition, Disla

seeks to challenge the calculation of his good conduct time (GCT) by the Bureau of
 According to the BOP’s website, Disla is housed at Northeast Ohio Correctional 1

Center. See http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?

start=y&facilityCode=NEO.

2

Prisons (BOP). For the following reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order and

remand with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction.

In November 2004, Disla was sentenced in the Eastern District of New York to 37

months in prison for importing cocaine. Disla served a portion of his sentence at FCI

Allenwood Low in White Deer, Pennsylvania. While at FCI Allenwood Low, the BOP

calculated Disla’s GCT based on the time he will actually serve in prison, not on the

length of the sentence imposed, and informed Disla his projected release date.

In September 2005, Disla attempted to challenge the BOP’s method of calculation

by filing the current habeas corpus petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his

petition, Disla names Karen F. Hogsten, Warden at FCI Allenwood Low, as respondent. 

At the bottom of his petition, Disla writes his address as “NEOCC,” Youngstown, Ohio.1

In denying Disla’s petition, the District Court cited O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172 (3d

Cir. 2005), as controlling precedent rejecting Disla’s position.

Although the District Court is correct that O’Donald governs the GCT issue raised

in Disla’s petition, the District Court apparently overlooked that he is housed at a

correctional facility outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court thus

neglected to recognize that Disla failed to name his immediate custodian as respondent. 

Under the federal habeas statute, the proper respondent is the person who has immediate
 In addition to the Ohio address affixed to the petition, the inmate account 2

statement accompanying Disla’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed

concurrently with the habeas petition, is certified by the business manager at the Ohio

facility.

 Upon determining that it lacked jurisdiction, the District Court normally would 3

consider whether the interests of justice require transferring Disla’s habeas petition to the

district court having jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Recently, the Sixth Circuit (the

judicial circuit which encompasses Ohio) expressly adopted our holding in O’Donald and

rejected Disla’s position. See Petty v. Stine, 424 F.3d 509, 510 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, transferring Disla’s habeas petition to a district court in Ohio would not

serve the interests of justice.

3

custody over the petitioner. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct.

2711, 2720 (2004). As we have previously held, the immediate custodian is the warden

of the facility where the petitioner is held because that person “has day-to-day control

over the prisoner” and can “produce the actual body.” Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507

(3d Cir. 1994).

At the time Disla filed his petition, he was in custody at a facility in Ohio, not in

the Middle District of Pennsylvania. His immediate custodian is the Warden at the Ohio 2

facility, not the Warden at FCI Allenwood Low. The District Court’s habeas jurisdiction

is limited to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Id. Accordingly, the District Court

should have dismissed Disla’s petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction.3

Because the District Court lacked habeas jurisdiction to consider Disla’s petition,

we will summarily vacate the District Court’s order. We will remand with instructions to

dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.