Luis Adutton-Myrie v. Attorney General USA; Warden Lackawanna County Prison

ALD-288 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1729
___________
LUIS A DUTTON-MYRIE,
Appellant
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL USA; WARDEN LACKAWANNA COUNTY PRISON
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00117)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 20, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES AND JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 4, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Luis Dutton-Myrie appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ

-- 1 of 2 --

Dutton-Myrie did not state under which statute he was bringing his habeas petition;1
because he is in federal custody, we presume he intended to file the petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Regardless of how the petition was filed, the District Court lacked
jurisdiction over Dutton-Myrie’s challenge of his removal order.
2
of habeas corpus. The procedural history of this case and the details of Dutton-Myrie’s1
claims are set forth in the District Court’s thorough order and need not be discussed at
length. Briefly, Dutton-Myrie sought to challenge an Immigration Judge’s April 1998
removal order. The District Court dismissed the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction,
and Dutton-Myrie filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court was correct that
it lacked jurisdiction over Dutton-Myrie’s petition. Except in circumstances not
applicable here, a petition for review is the exclusive means of judicial review of an order
of removal. Silva-Rengifo v. Attorney General, 473 F.3d 58, 62 (3d Cir. 2007); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(5). Thus, Dutton-Myrie may not challenge his April 1998 order of removal via
a habeas petition.
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. Dutton-Myrie’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

-- 2 of 2 --