Case ID: f-appx_433/html/0673-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eric ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Blake R. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-1258.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 16, 2011.
    Eric Adams, Florence, CO, pro se.
    
      Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Eric Adams is serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, contending that the New York federal court did not have jurisdiction in his case because the prosecution was “removed” from New York state court. The Colorado federal district court dismissed the application as improper under § 2241 because Mr. Adams has an adequate and effective remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also imposed filing restrictions on Mr. Adams because of his repeated § 2241 applications raising the identical claim.

On appeal Mr. Adams challenges the dismissal of his application (but not the filing restrictions). The ruling of the district court was clearly correct. We AFFIRM the decision below. We DENY Mr. Adams’s motions to order appellee to file a brief, to hold oral argument, to order that he be provided supplies to assist him in filing a brief, and to proceed in forma pauperis. 
      
      
         This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.