Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01306/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v. 

R. WILEY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-1306

ORDER

Filed November 20, 2007

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated “a reasoned,

nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on

appeal,” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999), we deny the petitioner

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. 

In his petition, the petitioner challenged a criminal judgment entered by the

District of Kansas following his guilty plea to wire fraud. The district court

Appellate Case: 07-1306 Document: 010172159 Date Filed: 11/20/2007 Page: 1
2

dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner was challenging the legality of

his sentence, and that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the petitioner with an adequate and

effective remedy to challenge the conviction and sentence.

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a

sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner

is confined. A [section 2255 motion] attacks the legality of detention, and must be

filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147,

1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th

Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. Only if the petitioner shows that

§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a judgment or

sentence may a prisoner petition for such a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. 

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Moreover, we note that the petitioner’s direct appeal is still pending

before this court. As a general rule, it is inappropriate for a court to consider a

collateral challenge to a criminal judgment before final disposition of the direct

appeal. See United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir. 1993) (“Absent

extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes

a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the direct appeal

is still pending.”).

Permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Appellate Case: 07-1306 Document: 010172159 Date Filed: 11/20/2007 Page: 2
3

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-1306 Document: 010172159 Date Filed: 11/20/2007 Page: 3