
    Daniel COBBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The BROWN SCHOOL, a Private Mental Institution; City of San Marcos Texas, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-50955
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 27, 2015.
    Daniel Eric Cobble, Milledgeville, GA, pro se.
    Before SMITH, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Cobble, Georgia prisoner # 758572, moves to proceed informa pau-peris (“IFP”) on appeal of the dismissal, without prejudice, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court denied his motion to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving in this court for IFP status, Cobble is challenging that certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court sitting in the Western District of Texas determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Cobble’s petition because he was not in custody in Texas. A petitioner must be in custody as defined in § 2241(c)(3) in order to seek relief under § 2241. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 488, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). He is in custody if he attacks his current confinement or, under certain circumstances, a potential future confinement. Id. at 488-89 & n. 4, 93 S.Ct. 1123. Cobble, though, is not currently confined in Texas, nor does he allege that Texas is attempting to confine him in the future. Accordingly, there is no arguable issue that he is in custody for purposes of raising claims challenging confinement in Texas. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Because Cobble is not in custody in Texas, he cannot obtain the relief he seeks under § 2241. The appeal is without arguable merit and thus is frivolous. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20, and the appeal is DISMISSED, see Baugh, 117. F.3d 197, 202 n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Cobble’s motion for bond pending appeal is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     