Calvin Wedington v. United States , 668 F. App'x 412 ( 2016 )

ALD-400 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1959
___________
CALVIN WEDINGTON,
Appellant
v.
USA; ATTORNEY GENERAL;
BLACK LIVES MATTER-ALL LIVES MATTER
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 4-16-cv-00209)
District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 1, 2016
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 7, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Pro se appellant Calvin Wedington appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his
habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal fails to present a
substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir.
LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
Wedington, a federal prisoner, is currently serving a life sentence after pleading
guilty to second-degree murder in 1982. Since 2005, he has been held in the Federal
Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (FMC-Rochester) pursuant to a commitment
order under 18 U.S.C. § 4245. See United States v. Wedington, 409 F. App’x 969 (8th
Cir. 2011); United States v. Wedington, 539 F. App’x 698 (8th Cir. 2013). Wedington
filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed the petition as
meritless. This appeal ensued.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its
findings of fact. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 2007).
As the District Court noted, it is difficult to discern Wedington’s habeas claims
from his petition. Wedington appears to seek release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624; the
District Court lacked jurisdiction to afford such relief. A § 2241 petition is properly filed
in the jurisdiction in which the prisoner is confined. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
447 (2004) (“Whenever 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.”); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 503 (3d Cir. 1994)
2
(“A district court's habeas corpus jurisdiction is territorially limited and extends only to
persons detained and custodial officials acting within the boundaries of that district.”).
FMC-Rochester is located outside the territory of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.1
The District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition.2
Accordingly, because no “substantial question” is presented as to the dismissal of
the § 2241 petition, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d
Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Although the District Court did not specify, the
dismissal is without prejudice. Wedington’s motions for appointment of counsel are
denied.
1
FMC-Rochester is located within the territory of the Minnesota District Court. See
http://www.uscourts.gov/court-locator/zip/55903/court/district (last visited August 26,
2016).
2
To the extent Wedington sought relief for violations of his civil rights and/or to recover
damages, his claims do not sound in habeas and § 2241 was not the proper vehicle for
relief. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (“In the case of a damages
claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.”).
3