Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01284/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01284-0/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 

_________________________________ 

ANTHONY LOLIN JIMENEZ, SR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

TELLER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; 

CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, c/o Michael Miller, Warden, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 16-1284 

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-01451-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Anthony L. Jimenez, Sr., a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to 

appeal the district court’s dismissal of his habeas application putatively filed under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court construed the application as challenging his conviction 

and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive 

habeas application filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny a certificate of 

appealability (COA) and dismiss the appeal. 

Jimenez was convicted after a jury trial of second degree murder and accessory 

to a crime. His convictions were affirmed on appeal in 2008. In 2015, Jimenez filed 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

September 19, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1284 Document: 01019690206 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 1 
2 

a federal habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Among his several claims, he 

asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the crimes were committed in 

a national forest. The district court dismissed his habeas application as untimely and 

procedurally barred. 

Jimenez next filed two separate motions in this court seeking authorization to 

file claims in the district court, including his jurisdictional claim, under §§ 2254 and 

2241. We held that Jimenez did not require our authorization to seek habeas relief 

under § 2241. See In re Jimenez, No. 15-1410 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 2015). And we 

denied Jimenez authorization to file a second habeas application under § 2254. 

See In re Jimenez, No. 16-1018 (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). 

Jimenez then proceeded to file a habeas application in district court, seeking 

relief under § 2241. Once again, he argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction 

because the crimes were committed in a national forest. The district court construed 

Jimenez’s filing as seeking relief under § 2254 because he was challenging the 

validity of his conviction rather than the execution of his sentence. After noting that 

this court had not authorized Jimenez to file a second § 2254 habeas application, the 

court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 

1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address 

the merits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the 

required authorization.”). Jimenez seeks to appeal the district court’s ruling. We 

deny a COA and dismiss this appeal. 

Appellate Case: 16-1284 Document: 01019690206 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 2 
3 

In order to pursue an appeal, Jimenez must obtain a COA. See Montez v. 

McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866-67 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding state prisoner must obtain 

COA to appeal final order in habeas corpus proceeding); cf. United States v. Harper, 

545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding federal prisoner must obtain COA to 

appeal district court’s dismissal of unauthorized second-or-successive motion under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction). Because the district court’s ruling rested 

on procedural grounds, Jimenez must show both “that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We 

liberally construe Jimenez’s pro se application for a COA. See Hall v. Scott, 

292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Jimenez does not dispute that he previously filed a habeas application under 

§ 2254. Nor does he contend that this court granted him authorization to file his 

jurisdictional claim in a second § 2254 application. Jimenez instead argues that he 

intentionally filed that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) because it is cognizable 

under that section. Therefore, he asserts, the district court erred in construing his 

motion as seeking relief under § 2254. 

Section 2241(c)(3) provides: “The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a 

prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

Appellate Case: 16-1284 Document: 01019690206 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 3 
4 

treaties of the United States.”1

 A habeas application does not arise under § 2254 

simply because the applicant is in state custody. See Montez, 208 F.3d at 864-65. 

But we have held that “[§] 2241 is a vehicle for challenging pretrial detention or for 

attacking the execution of a sentence. A § 2254 petition, on the other hand, is the 

proper avenue for attacking the validity of a conviction and sentence.” Yellowbear v. 

Wyoming Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 921, 924 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also 

Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (“A petition under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity . . . .”); McIntosh v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that § 2254 habeas 

proceedings “are used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and 

sentence”). 

Jimenez argues that his habeas application was nonetheless properly filed 

under § 2241 because, rather than challenging his conviction, he argued that his 

criminal case was void at its inception. But he ultimately sought to invalidate his 

conviction based on a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not 

debate whether the district court was correct in construing his motion as filed under 

§ 2254 rather than § 2241. 

We deny Jimenez’s application for a COA and dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny his motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees because he has not 

shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in 

 1

 Jimenez also asserts that he filed his habeas application under § 2241(c)(4). 

We do not address this contention because Jimenez did not allege any facts indicating 

that he is “a citizen of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(4). 

Appellate Case: 16-1284 Document: 01019690206 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 4 
5 

support of the issues raised. Therefore, any unpaid amounts of the filing and 

docketing fees are now due. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-1284 Document: 01019690206 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 5