Arthur Brennan Malloy v. USA, et al., No. 14-15298 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-15298 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-01777-SLB-TMP ARTHUR BRENNAN MALLOY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (July 9, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Arthur Malloy, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition related to his other than honorable discharge from the military in 1965. Malloy asserts the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he did not meet the “in custody” definition of § 2241. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States, 396 F.3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005). To bring a federal habeas action, a petitioner must be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 2241 as requiring that a habeas petitioner be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence that he seeks to attack at the time when his petition is filed. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). The Supreme Court has also recognized habeas actions brought pursuant to § 2241 may be appropriate where “members of the armed services . . . have been unlawfully detained, restrained, or confined” by the military. Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U.S. 487, 489 (1971). Although a petitioner can challenge his other than honorable discharge from the military in district court and seek declaratory judgment, § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for bringing such a claim. See Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579, 580-83 (1958) (finding the district court had jurisdiction to review petitioners’ actions seeking declaratory judgments that the Secretary of Army’s 2 Case: 14-15298 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3 issuance of other than honorable discharge certificates were void and in excess of his powers). The district court did not err in dismissing Malloy’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Malloy is not challenging his conviction or sentence related to his confinement in Alabama state prison, and he is not detained, restrained, or confined by the military. Thus, he does not meet the “in custody” definition of § 2241. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
