Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-96-01006/USCOURTS-ca10-96-01006-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

~TEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WAYMAN BERNARD BRADSHAW, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

FILED 

lJDited Stat• Court of Appcall Teatb Circuit 

JUN 1 0 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Cerk 

v. No. 96-1006 

BILLR. STORY, Warden,ADX, 

Florence, Colorado, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

. Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 95-Z-1237) 

Submitted on the briefs:· 

Wayman Bernard Bradshaw, prose. 

Henry L. Solano, United States Attorney, and Charlotte J. Mapes, Assistant United States 

Attorney, of Denver, for the respondent-appellee. 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

• After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. ~Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 1
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. 

Wayman Bernard Bradshaw appeals the district court's dismissal ofhis petition for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. 

Bradshaw is a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary, Administrative 

Maximum, Florence, Colorado. He is serving a sentence imposed by the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Florida. He brought this action under § 2241 in 

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, arguing the court used 

unconstitutional Florida convictions to enhance his federal sentence. The matter was 

referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal. Bradshaw objected to the 

magistrate judge's recommendation. The district court accepted the recommendation, 

concluding Bradshaw could not bring this action pursuant to § 2241 because he had not 

demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate to test the legality gfhis detention. The 

court dismissed his action without prejudice to allow him to proceed under§ 2255 in the 

Middle District of Florida. 

Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we must first address the applicability of 

the recently enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Section 102 of Title I of the Act altered the procedure for taking 

an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. More specifically, as amended by§ 102, 

28 U.S.C. § 2253 provides: 

2 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 2
(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the 

court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to 

test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment 

or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to 

test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 

(c) ( 1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 

an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out ofprocess issued by a State court; or 

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph ( 1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 

Bradshaw filed his notice of appeal and the district court granted him leave to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis before the President signed the Act on April24, 

1996. "A statute is effective upon the date of its enactment unless an express provision 

states otherwise." United States v. Kinfl, 948 F.2d 1227, 1228 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. 

denied 503 U.S. 966 (1992). Accord United States v. Bafia, 949 F.2d 1465, 1480 (7th 

Cir. 1991), cert. denied 504 U.S. 928 (1992) . .cL. United States v. Affleck, 765 F.2d 944, 

948 (lOth Cir. 1985). The only effective date provision specified within Title I appears in 

§ 107(c) under the special death penalty procedures, which states the chapter containing 

the special procedures "shall apply to cases pending on or after the date of enactment of 

this Act." Bradshaw's is not a death penalty case; thus, the death penalty procedures do 

not apply. Nevertheless, even if§ 102 applies to pending cases, we conclude no 

3 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 3
certificate of appealability is required here because the instant appeal is from a final order 

denying a § 2241 petition, which is neither a "final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in 

which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court" nor a 

"final order in a proceeding under section 2255." 

Bradshaw argues he should be allowed to proceed under§ 2241 because§ 2255 is 

inadequate, as evidenced by the sentencing court's denial of his previous§ 2255 petitions, 

from which he did not appeal and which he seems to contend demonstrates bias, and the 

likelihood that he "faces an abuse of the Writ Doctrine under rule 9(c) governing 2255 

petition[s]." Appellant's br. at 2. 

We review the district court's denial of Bradshaw's habeas corpus petition de novo. 

Bowser v. Bo~gs, 20 F.3d 1060, 1062 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 313 (1994). 

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. United States 

v. Scott, 803 F.2d 1095, 1096 (lOth Cir. 1986). It is not an additional, alternative, or 

supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 

(lOth Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 980 (1964). 

A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention, Barkan v. United 

~. 341 F.2d 95, 96 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied 381 U.S. 940 (1965), and must be filed in 

the district that imposed the sentence, United States v. Condit, 621 F .2d 1096, 1097 (1Oth 

Cir. 1980). "The purpose of section 2255 is to provide a method of determining the 

4 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 4
validity of a judgment by the court which imposed the sentence, rather than by the court 

in the district where the prisoner is confined." Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 

(lOth Cir. 1965). 

"The exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence, unless 

it is inadequate or ineffective, is that provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2255." Id. More 

specifically, § 2255 prohibits a district court from entertaining an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion 

pursuant to § 2255 "if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by 

motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless 

it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of 

his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "Failure to obtain reliefunder 2255 does not establish 

that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective." Williams, 323 F.2d at 

673 (lOth Cir. 1963) (quoting Overman v. United States, 322 F.2d 649 (lOth Cir. 1963)). 

Bradshaw attempts to attack the validity of his Florida federal sentence under 

§ 2241; he opposes his sentence and not the execution ofhis sentence . .c.f.. United States 

v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980) (petitioner's appropriate remedy is under§ 

2255 and not § 2241 where alleged errors occurred at or prior to sentencing). He relies 

primarily on the sentencing court's denial of his prior§ 2255 motions to show§ 2255 is 

an inadequate remedy. His reliance is misplaced. The sentencing court's denial of his 

prior§ 2255 motions does not alone establish bias and, even if Bradshaw's § 2241 

5 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 5
petition did establish bias,§ 2255 still would be adequate because he could move to 

recuse the sentencing judge. ~ 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455; Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 

1160, 1163 (9th Cir.) (motion to recuse makes§ 2255 an effective remedy even if 

allegations ofbias are true), cert. denied 488 U.S. 982 (1988). 

In short, Bradshaw provides insufficient evidence that relief is unavailable to him 

under a properly filed§ 2255 motion. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not 

err in denying Bradshaw's § 2241 petition and in dismissing his action without prejudice. 

AFFIRMED. 

6 

Appellate Case: 96-1006 Document: 01019301469 Date Filed: 06/10/1996 Page: 6