Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andre J. TWITTY, a/k/a Andre Twitty, a/k/a A.J. Twitty, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Blake DAVIS; Charles Daniels, named as Blake Daniels, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-1409.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 12, 2011.
    Andre J. Twitty, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       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.
    
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Andre J. Twitty, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Twitty also submits a motion for release pending the outcome of this appeal. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision and DENY Twitty’s motion for release.

I. Background

In 1999, following a jury trial in the Northern District of Georgia, Twitty was convicted of wilfully communicating a bomb threat via telephone and threatening federal law enforcement officers and their immediate family members. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Twitty, 31 Fed.Appx. 934 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1029, 122 S.Ct. 1632, 152 L.Ed.2d 642 (2002).

In 2002 Twitty applied for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently denied a certificate of appealability. Twitty v. United States, No. 04-12805 (11th Cir. April 25, 2005).

Since then, Twitty has filed eleven petitions challenging his conviction and sentence in the District of Colorado, including the instant claim. He has pursued many of these petitions on appeal. Each petition has been unsuccessful.

The district court dismissed the petition at issue here on the grounds that § 2241 is not a means of challenging the validity of a judgment. The court explained that “a petition under § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity,” and that “[t]he exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence” is a § 2255 petition filed in the district where the sentence was imposed. R. Vol. 1 at 27 (quotations omitted). The district court also denied Twitty’s motion to appeal informa pauperis.

II. Discussion

A. The District Court’s Denial

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996).

After careful review of Twitty’s brief on appeal, his habeas petition, and the disposition below, we affirm the dismissal for substantially the same reasons set forth in Twitty v. Daniels, — Fed.Appx. -, 2011 WL 94738 (10th Cir.2011).

B. Motion for Release

Because we find Twitty’s appeal is without merit, we also deny his motion for release pending appeal as moot.

C. Filing Restrictions

“The right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.” Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (quotation and alteration omitted). “[Where] a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive, restrictions are appropriate.” Id. (quotation omitted). Because Twitty’s frequent and frivolous filings are abusive, we concluded in a related appeal that filing restrictions are necessary. See Twitty v. Daniels, — Fed.Appx. -, 2011 WL 94738 (10th Cir.2011). We will not repeat our discussion of the restrictions here, but only remind Twitty that these restrictions will take effect twenty days from the date of the order or, if he objects within ten days, after the court has ruled on his objections.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Twitty’s habeas petition. We also DENY Twitty’s request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis as his opening brief does not make a reasoned non-frivolous argument in support of his claim. 
      
       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.
     
      
      . Because Twitty is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007).
     
      
      . See Twitty v. Davis, No. 10-cv-01356, 2010 WL 2540105 (D. Colo. June 22, 2010); Twitty v. Daniels, No. 10-CV-00888-ZLW, 2010 WL 1726905 (D.Colo. Apr. 27, 2010); Twitty v. Davis, No. 10-cv-000634 (D.Colo. Mar. 31, 2010), appeal filed, No. 10-1198 (10th Cir. May 3, 2010); Twitty v. Davis, No. 09-cv-02538-ZLW, 2010 WL 97782 (D.Colo. Jan. 11, 2010); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 09-cv-00906-ZLW, 2009 WL 1810980 (D. Colo. June 24, 2009); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 08-cv-02717-ZLW, 2009 WL 866839 (D.Colo. Mar. 25, 2009); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 08-CV-02823-BNB, 2009 WL 440902 (D.Colo. Feb. 13, 2009), aff'd, 336 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir.2009); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 08-CV-02119-ZLW, 2008 WL 494880 L (D.Colo. Nov. 17, 2008), aff’d, 332 Fed.Appx. 523 (10th Cir.2009); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 07-cv-02441-ZLW, 2008 WL 582188 (D.Colo. Mar. 3, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. 08-1118 (10th Cir. June 11, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. 08-1277 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2008); Twitty v. Wiley, No. 06-cv-00177-ZLW (D.Colo. Mar. 29, 2006), aff'd, No. 06-1234 (10th Cir. July 17, 2006), cert. denied No. 06-6290, 549 U.S. 968 (Oct. 10, 2006).