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

7-3-2014 

# Theo dor e Y oun g , S r . v . Att or ne y Ge ne r al U nit ed S t a t es

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 N o . 14-1174

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

" The odor e Y

oun g , S r . v . Att or ney Ge ne r al U

nit e d S t a t e s " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 666. 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_2014/666

### 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- 270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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 fo r 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 ( F iled : July 3, 2014 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Theodore Young, Sr. (“Young”), was conv icted 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 , 3392



### F. App’x 153, 165 (3d Cir. 2009). Young l ater 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 fi le 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 recommend ation, 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 § 225 5 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 corre ctly 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 a ppeal 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.