Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01309/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01309-0/pdf.json

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

---

f 

• 

JOSEPH C. 

v. 

WARDEN A. 

SUN, 

PI LED 

Uoited Scaces C.Wrt ~f Appeals Tenth Clrcu1t 

URITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Mf;l.Y 2 Q i991 

TBNTII CIRCUIT 

-------&OBERTL.HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

BELASKI, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

No. 90-1309 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 90-C-986) 

ORDER AND JUDGMEBT* 

Before ANDERSOH, TACHA, BRORBY, 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Joseph C. Sun, appearing prose, appeals the denial of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

S 2241. The district court denied the petition and we affirm. 

Sun was convicted on September 18, 1987 by a jury in the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 

of one count of forgery and two counts of mail fraud, all in 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 1 
1 

violation of federal statutes. He was sentenced to five years 

imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. After 

filing several unsuccessful motions in the sentencing court in 

Georgia, one of which may still be on appeal to the Eleventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sun, then an inmate at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado, filed a habeas 

petition in the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado. He challenged his sentence and alleged that judges in 

the Georgia District court and the Eleventh Circuit had conspired 

to deprive him of meaningful access to the courts. He also 

asserted his entitlement to parole. 

The district court denied the petition, in part in reliance 

upon section 2255 's direct.ive that actions to correct illegal 

sentences must be brought in the sentencing court (in this case 

the district court in Georgia) and in part because Sun had failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies regarding certain of his 

claims. His appeal to this court of that denial was dismissed on 

July 13, 1990, pursuant to his own motion. 

Before that first appeal was dismissed by this court, Sun 

filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging 

(1) that a United States District Court judge in Georgia has 

engaged in criminal activities and is predisposed to dismiss or 

deny all of his filings; (2) that the Bureau of Prisons persists 

in transferring him and placing him in "cellhouse detention," with 

the result that his filings are improperly and inadequately 

prepared; (3) that he should be granted an evidentiary hearing in 

which to prove his innocence of the crimes for which he was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 2 
convicted and to prove the existence of a criminal scheme by the 

federal judiciary in Georgia; and (4) that other judges in Georgia 

have become prejudiced against him and repeatedly dismiss his filings. He supplemented the petition with the further allegation 

that his sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment. Sun also moved for a temporary restraining order and 

to enjoin alleged harassment he suffers at the hands of prison 

employees and inmates, and to enjoin a claimed pending transfer to 

another federal facility. He further moved to be released on bond 

pending disposition of his case. 

The magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred 

recommended that the petition be dismissed because (1) Sun had not 

demonstrated exhaustion of all administrative remedies with 

respect to certain of his claims; (2) his double jeopardy claim 

should be brought in the sentencing court; and (3) all his claims 

are "conclusory statements without supporting factual allegations." Recommendation at 5, R. Vol. I Tab 7. The district court 

adopted the recommendation and entered an order denying Sun's 

various motions and dismissing his habeas petition "all without 

prejudice to reassert these matters after exhaustion of administrative remedies." Order at 2, R. Vol. I Tab 10. 

Sun makes three arguments in this appeal: (1) he properly 

brought his habeas petition in the Colorado district court because 

his remedy by motion in the sentencing court is "inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention" under 28 u.s.c. 

S 2255, in view of the alleged bias of the Georgia federal 

judiciary; (2) his sentence to consecutive five year terms on the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 3 
two mail fraud counts violates the double jeopardy clause; and (3) 

the district court order was "too vague to inform the petitioner 

of any actual ruling made by the court. 111 We reject all of these 

arguments for multiple reasons. 

We first note, as did the magistrate judge, that Sun's 

petition, while styled a section 2241 petition, actually includes 

at least one claim more in the nature of an attack on the validity 

of his conviction and sentence. Such an attack is properly 

brought under section 2255. His remaining claims could be viewed 

as either challenges to the conditions of his confinement properly 

brought under section 2241 or as civil rights claims brought under 

28 u.s.c. S 1331 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). 

A federal prisoner who seeks relief under section 1241 or 

under section 1331 or Bivens must first exhaust administrative 

remedies. As the district court held, Sun has not demonstrated 

that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to 

those of his claims relating to the conditions of his imprisonment. Accordingly, those claims could be dismissed on that 

ground. 2 

1 In his Reply Brief, Sun dropped the issue of his release on 

bond pending disposition of this case. 

2 While the district court's order did not specify which issues 

were not exhausted, the court did adopt the entire recommendation 

of the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge's recommendation 

specified in some detail the various grounds, including exhaustion, for dismissing Sun's petition. We therefore reject Sun's 

argument that the district court's order was impermissibly vague. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 4 
I 

Sun's claim that his sentence violates the double jeopardy 

clause, and his claimed entitlement to a hearing to prove his 

innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted, are more in 

the nature of an attack on the validity of his conviction and 

sentence. These are properly brought under section 2255 and in 

the sentencing court: 

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of 

a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by 

motion pursuant to this section, shall not be 

entertained 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. S 2255 (emphasis added). See also Carter v. Attorney 

General, 782 F.2d 138, 141 (10th Cir. 1986) ("[A]n action 

attacking a federal criminal conviction should be brought in the 

district court that rendered the conviction, at least so long as a 

remedy is available there."). Sun argues that his remedy by 

motion in the sentencing court in Georgia is inadequate or 

ineffective because the motions already filed in that court have 

been denied and, more fundamentally, because the federal judiciary 

in Georgia has engaged in a criminal scheme and is prejudiced 

against him. Neither argument is persuasive. "A remedy is not 

inadequate or ineffective under section 2255 merely because the 

sentencing court denied relief on the merits." Tripati v. Henman, 

843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). Sun presents no persuasive 

reason why his remedy is inadequate or ineffective in the 

sentencing court. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over his 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 5 
attack on his conviction and sentence, including his double 

jeopardy claim. 

Finally, we agree with the magistrate judge that his claims, 

particularly his allegations of criminality and bias among the 

federal judiciary, are vague and conclusory and wholly devoid of 

specific factual support. 

The judgment of the district court, holding that Sun's 

section 2241 challenges to the conditions of his confinement were 

not exhausted, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear 

his section 2255 attack on the validity of his conviction and 

sentence, and that all of his claims as presented in his petition 

were fatally vague and conclusory, is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1309 Document: 010110106544 Date Filed: 05/20/1991 Page: 6