Domingo Gomez-Pulido v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968, 973 3d Cir. 1993 . Summary action is appropriate if there is no…

1
BLD-156 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4038
________________
DOMINGO GOMEZ-PULIDO,
Appellant
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-2830)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 22, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed: April 18, 2007
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Domingo Gomez-Pulido appeals the District Court’s order denying his
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 15, 2006, Gomez-Pulido was
indicted for distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On June 28,
2006, Gomez-Pulido, who is represented by counsel in his criminal case, filed a pro se §
2241 petition. The District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice. Gomez-

-- 1 of 2 --

1 We note that according to the District Court’s electronic docket, Gomez-Pulido
entered a guilty plea on November 28, 2006.
2
Pulido filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
In his petition, Gomez-Pulido requested that the indictment against him be
dismissed and he be released from custody. The District Court stated that Gomez-Pulido
sought relief which was duplicative of motions pending in his criminal case or that could
be filed in his criminal case. In his notice of appeal, Gomez-Pulido argues that the
District Court should have converted the petition into a pretrial motion in his criminal
case.1 The District Court did not err in dismissing Gomez-Pulido’s petition. The District
Court was not required to act on Gomez-Pulido’s pro se filings while he is represented by
counsel. United States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968, 973 (3d Cir. 1993).
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented
in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set
forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See
Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 2 of 2 --