Jean-Louis v. U.S. Penitentiary , 483 F. App'x 525 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 7, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH WILLIAM JEAN-LOUIS,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 10-1496
v. (D. of Colo.)
WARDEN DANIELS, UNITED (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-01624-LTB)
STATES PENITENTIARY,
FLORENCE, COLORADO,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. **
Joseph William Jean-Louis is a federal prisoner who appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Because Jean-Louis is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings
liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 1
I. Background
Jean-Louis was convicted of bank robbery in the Western District of
Missouri. After being sentenced, he sought post-conviction relief by filing a
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 in that court. See Jean-Louis v. United
States, No. 09-3066-CV-S-RED, 2009 WL 1912523 (W.D. Mo. July 1, 2009). His
motion was denied. Id.Jean-Louis then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 in the District of Colorado, the jurisdiction where he was serving his
sentence, challenging the validity of his conviction. The magistrate judge ordered
him to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed because of the
availability of an adequate and effective remedy under § 2255 in the sentencing
court. After Jean-Louis failed to demonstrate why a § 2255 motion was not the
proper remedy, the district court denied his § 2241 application and dismissed the
action. Jean-Louis now appeals here.
1
While this appeal was pending, Jean-Louis was transferred from the
United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado to the Terre Haute Federal
Correction Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Jean-Louis’s transfer does not
divest us of jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “It is well established that
jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not
destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.”
Santillanes v. United States Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985)
(citations omitted).
-2-
II. Discussion
We review the district court’s denial of Jean-Louis’s habeas petition de
novo. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).
“The purposes of an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are distinct and well
established.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999). A
petition filed under § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence and “is not an
additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to” § 2255. Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at
166 (citations omitted). Jean-Louis’s § 2241 application does not challenge the
execution of his sentence, but instead attacks the legality of his conviction and
sentence. Where a federal prisoner seeks to attack the validity of a judgment and
sentence, the prisoner must resort to the remedy provided for in § 2255. See
Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th Cir. 1965). There is a narrow
exception to this rule that permits a federal prisoner to bring a petition pursuant to
§ 2241 if the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of the conviction or sentence. See e.g., Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1073
(10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 997 (2011); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e).
Jean-Louis argues the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective
because his § 2255 motion was denied by the same judge who presided over his
criminal case, who could not have been impartial in considering his motion for
-3-
post-conviction relief. But as the district court correctly noted, this reason alone
fails to demonstrate Jean-Louis’s remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective.
“Failure to obtain relief under [§] 2255 does not establish that the remedy
so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” See Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the trial judge
erroneously denied his § 2255 motion, that outcome does not render § 2255
inadequate or ineffective because Jean-Louis could have appealed the unfavorable
decision. See Sines, 609 F.3d at 1073. Furthermore, the sentencing judge’s
alleged bias does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective because Jean-Louis
could have moved to recuse the judge. See id. (citing Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 164).
In sum, having failed to demonstrate the remedy available to him under
§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge his conviction or sentence, Jean-
Louis cannot proceed under § 2241.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.
Entered for the Court,
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-4-