Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01394/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01394-0/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

DON ALTON HARPER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v. 

BLAKE DAVIS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-1394

(D.C. No. 07-CV-01589-ZLW)

ORDER

Filed December 14, 2007

Before HENRY, McCONNELL and HOLMES, 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, 1179 (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

United States District Court for the District of Kansas following his conviction on

Appellate Case: 07-1394 Document: 010191746 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 1
-2-

robbery and firearms offenses. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding

that the petitioner was challenging the legality of his convictions and 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. 

The petitioner argues that the district court improperly recharacterized his

motion without giving the notification required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.

375 (2003). However, the district court did not recharacterize the petitioner’s

pleading. The petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,” and that the district court treated the pleading

as one filed under § 2241. Moreover, the procedure set forth in Castro only applies

Appellate Case: 07-1394 Document: 010191746 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 2
-3-

to first § 2255 motions. See United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1246 (10th Cir.

2002). The petitioner has previously filed several § 2255 motions. See discussion

in Harper v. Pratt, 71 Fed. Appx. 26, 27 (10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).

Permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-1394 Document: 010191746 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 3