2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-2-2014 

# D a v id M e y e rs v

. W a r de n Al le n wo o d U S P

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 13-4388

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D a v id M ey e r s v

. W a r de n Al le n

w ood U S P " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 134. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/134

### CLD

- 164 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Juri sdictional 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

( F iled : February 3, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM David Meyers f

iled 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,

### 2

Virginia. M eyers 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 dismi ssed 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 di smissing 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 respond ent 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. Di st. 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 Meye rs’ petition.

### 3

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.