Travis Banks v. United States Attorney General

*AMENDED DLD-207 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1307
________________
TRAVIS BANKS, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00182)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 17, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Travis Banks appeals from an order dismissing his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. This case arises from Banks’ arrest in the District of Columbia for
carrying a dangerous weapon (a flare gun) on the steps of the United States Supreme
Court in September 2006. Banks was incarcerated and subsequently filed a petition for

-- 1 of 2 --

This habeas petition is still pending in the District Court for the District of Columbia.1
To the extent that Banks’ petition could be perceived as a habeas petition pursuant to2
28 U.S.C. § 2254, see Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484-85 (3d Cir. 2001), we would
deny a certificate of appealability. Banks cannot bring a § 2254 habeas petition in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under these circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
2
writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See
Banks v. United States Attorney General, Civ. No. 07-cv-00021.1
Banks also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in January 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As noted by the
District Court, it is somewhat unclear the relief Banks sought by filing this petition in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. To the extent that Banks’ petition could be perceived as
a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he must file the petition in the District
Court having jurisdiction over Banks’ custodian (which is not the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania). See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Therefore, because
Banks’ appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. Banks’2
motion to seal, motion for security tapes, motion for default and summary judgment as
well as his motion for an emergency hearing and witness protection are denied.

-- 2 of 2 --