Tyler v. Kastner , 442 F. App'x 413 ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 6, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
TERRY TYLER,
Petitoner - Appellant,
v. No. 11-6170
(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00210-M)
PAUL A. KASTNER, Warden, (W.D. Oklahoma)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Terry Tyler, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the
district court’s order of dismissal.
Tyler filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma asserting the Bureau of Prisons erroneously
denied his request for pre-release transfer to a residential re-entry center. The
government moved to dismiss Tyler’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The
district court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the petition for lack
of jurisdiction, noting that at the time he filed the petition, Tyler was detained in
a federal prison facility in Virginia.
The district court’s conclusion it lacked jurisdiction over Tyler’s § 2241
petition is indisputably correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (providing that district
courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions”);
id. § 2242 (providing that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the
person who has custody over [the petitioner]”); id. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to
show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person
detained.”); 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.”). Accordingly, for those reasons set out by the
district court, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s order of dismissal.
Furthermore, because Tyler has failed to make a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument
-2-
on appeal, we DENY his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and
order him to remit the full appellate filing fee forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-