2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-3-2014

Theodore Young, Sr. v. Attorney General United

States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1174

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

"Theodore Young, Sr. v. Attorney General United States" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 666.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/666
ALD-270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1174

___________

THEODORE YOUNG, SR.,

Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00679)

District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

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

June 26, 2014

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 3, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Theodore Young, Sr. (“Young”), was convicted of various controlled substance 

offenses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and 

sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment. We affirmed. See United States v. Lee, 339 
2

F. App’x 153, 165 (3d Cir. 2009). Young later filed a motion for relief from his sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court denied it, and we denied a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”). (C.A. No. 11-3581, Jan. 11, 2012.)

At issue here is a habeas petition that Young purported to file under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his 

petition, Young argued that his confinement is unlawful under the Eleventh Amendment 

and 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) because his criminal proceeding was initiated, not by the United 

States, but by a certain confidential informant who Young contends is not a United States 

citizen, was present in this country illegally, and has since been deported. The District 

Court, adopting a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, dismissed Young’s petition with 

prejudice. Young appeals.1

The Magistrate Judge correctly explained that Young was required to file his 

challenge under § 2255 and not § 2241 because he sought relief from his criminal 

judgment and because the § 2255 remedy is not inadequate or ineffective under the 

exception recognized in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997), or otherwise. See

28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); United States v. Tyler, 732 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 2013). The 

Magistrate Judge further correctly explained that any § 2255 motion would be properly 

 

1 Young does not require a COA to appeal the denial of his putative § 2241 petition. See

Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). Young timely filed his notice of 

appeal but mistakenly filed it in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which returned it to 

him for refiling in the proper court. We will treat the notice as having been transferred to 

the proper court. We thus have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

filed only in the sentencing court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The District Court could 

have considered transferring Young’s petition to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 

be treated as a § 2255 motion, but Young has since filed a § 2255 motion with that court 

raising the same claim. That court dismissed the motion as an unauthorized second or 

successive § 2255 motion, and Young’s request for a COA to appeal that ruling is 

pending at C.A. No. 14-1910.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.