Charles Pollock, Jr. v. Matthew Marske, No. 21-2570 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam. Before Colloton, Erickson, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Habeas Case - Section 2241. District court did not err in concluding it did not have jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2570 ___________________________ Charles W. Pollock, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Warden Matthew Marske; Jeremy Nerdstadt; Jill Slegh lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: April 21, 2022 Filed: April 26, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Pollock appeals after the district court1 denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his custody classification within the Bureau of Prisons. After careful review, we conclude the district court correctly determined it did not have jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition. See Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court’s dismissal of § 2241 petition reviewed de novo); Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (if prisoner is not challenging validity of conviction or length of detention, habeas corpus is not proper remedy). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
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.
