Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

498 F.2d 1087

Docket No. 74-1552

Mounce v. Knighten

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 9, 1974.

Rehearing Granted Nov. 11, 1974.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-08-09

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1974

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Mounce v. Knighten

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1974-08-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2See 503 F.2d 967.

¶3Albert S. Mounee, pro se.

¶4John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Ben M. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

¶5Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8A person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court in a State containing two or more Federal judicial districts may file application for Federal writ of habeas corpus in one of two places: either “the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody” or “the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (1970). Appellant Albert S. Mounee was convicted following a jury trial in the criminal district court in Tarrant County, Texas, located in the Northern District of Texas. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Mounee alleged that he was in custody of the Texas Department of Corrections [TDC] Railroad Project in Maydelle, Texas, located in the Eastern District. It appears from the notarization on the pro se petition, however, that by the time Mounee actually filed the application he had been returned to the TDC Ellis Unit in Walker County, Texas, which is located in the Southern District of Texas. He remains in confinement in the Ellis Unit. Accordingly, the district court acted correctly in dismissing appellant’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

¶9Affirmed.

/498/f2d/1087 · .json · Public domain