2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-2-2014

David Meyers v. Warden Allenwood USP

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 13-4388

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 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

"David Meyers v. Warden Allenwood USP" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 134.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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CLD-164 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 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, 
2

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. 
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.