William Pledger, III v. Marty Anderson, No. 10-3001 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Order dismissing Section 2241 petition reversed and case remanded with directions to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas in the interests of justice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3001 ___________ William Pledger, III, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Marty C. Anderson, Warden, * United States Medical Center for * [UNPUBLISHED] Federal Prisoners, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: February 24, 2011 Filed: May 6, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. William Pledger appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pledger filed his petition in January 2009, while confined at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri,1 arguing that his confinement pursuant to a 2004 commitment order entered in the United 1 Pledger was subsequently transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas was unlawful because the commitment proceedings did not comply with 18 U.S.C. § 4246. In dismissing Pledger s petition, the district court held that issues related to Pledger s commitment needed to be resolved in the committing court, as it was in the best position to evaluate the merits of Pledger s argument that the commitment order was invalid. Upon review, we reverse the dismissal order, and we remand the case to the district court with instructions to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (district court may transfer to cure venue defect if it be in the interest of justice ); Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 649 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ______________________________ -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.
