Mark Woods v. WARDEN CANAAN USP On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern…

ALD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1730
___________
MARK WOODS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN CANAAN USP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-01833)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________________
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
June 26, 2025
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 6, 2025)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* 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 3 --

2
Mark Woods appeals the District Court’s order denying and dismissing his habeas
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with prejudice. For the reasons that follow,
we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
In 2018, Woods, a federal prisoner, was sentenced to life plus 180 years in prison
after being convicted of, inter alia, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, kidnapping,
carjacking, and firearm charges. His pro se direct appeal is pending. See C.A. No. 19-
1002.
In April 2024, Woods filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming that the District
Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because, at the time of trial, he had a pending appeal
of the denial of a pre-trial § 2241 petition. Woods sought release from prison. The
District Court determined that Woods’s claim should be brought in a motion filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By orders entered May 13 and May 16, 2024, the Court
directed its Clerk to send Woods the standard form for filing a § 2255 motion, directed
Woods to complete the form within 30 days, and stated that if he failed to do so, his case
may be dismissed. Woods did not file a § 2255 motion and instead filed a notice of
appeal.
On appeal, we observed that, “[a]lthough the District Court did not expressly
dismiss Appellant’s habeas petition pursuant to § 2241, it has effectively done so by
precluding him from proceeding absent the filing of a § 2255.” We then summarily
affirmed the District Court’s orders to the extent that it held that Woods could not pursue
his claim in a § 2241 petition. See C.A. No. 24-2262. Citing our mandate, the District

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Court thereafter formally denied and dismissed the § 2241 petition with prejudice by
order entered April 3, 2025. Woods filed another notice of appeal from that order.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011). As described above, we have already
determined that Woods may not bring his claim in a § 2241 petition. The District Court
did not err in following our mandate and denying and dismissing the § 2241 petition with
prejudice.
For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See
Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Woods’s “Motion for Summary Vacating” is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --