Tyler v. Kastner, No. 11-6170 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Pro se prisoner Petitioner Terry Tyler appealed an order that dismissed his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed his petition asserting that the Bureau of Prisons erroneously denied his request for pre-release transfer to a residential re-entry center. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, noting that at the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was detained in a federal prison facility in Virginia. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court's conclusion was indisputably correct, and affirmed the order of dismissal.
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 6, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court TERRY TYLER, Petitoner - Appellant, v. PAUL A. KASTNER, Warden, No. 11-6170 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00210-M) (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 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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-
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.
