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 *281 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.