James L. Glover v. City of Philadelphia; City of Philadelphia Law Department; Unknown City Employees; Cpoc

ALD-137 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1479
___________
JAMES L. GLOVER,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT;
UNKNOWN CITY EMPLOYEES; CPOC
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00786)
District Judge: Honorable Kai N. Scott
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 13, 2024
Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 2, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM
In February 2024, James Glover, who lives in the City of Philadelphia (“City”),
filed a pro se habeas petition in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming
that he had been unlawfully banned from certain City buildings. Shortly thereafter, the
District Court dismissed the petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction because Glover “is
not in custody, does not seek release from custody, and does not mention a conviction or
pending charges against him on which he is out on bail.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 5, at 2 n.1.
The District Court noted that this dismissal was without prejudice to Glover’s ability to
raise his claims in a civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This timely appeal
followed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see G.W. v.
Ringwood Bd. of Educ., 28 F.4th 465, 468 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2022), and our review is
plenary, see Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99, 102 (3d Cir. 2017). For
substantially the reasons provided by the District Court, we agree with its decision to
dismiss Glover’s petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction. As the District Court indicated,
that dismissal does not prevent him from raising his claims in a § 1983 action.1 Because
this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District
Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
1 We take no position on the merits of such an action.

-- 2 of 2 --