Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03136/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duke Terrell
Appellee
Earnest Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under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

July 2, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EARNEST WILSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DUKE TERRELL, Warden

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-3136

 (D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03197-RDR)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McCONNELL, and GORSUCH, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District

Appellate Case: 08-3136 Document: 01011987466 Date Filed: 07/02/2008 Page: 1
2

Court for the District of Kansas of his petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm.

The petitioner challenged a criminal judgment entered by the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He alleged that he

is being illegally held because the sentencing court had no right to

resentence him without another plea or a trial, that the trial court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, and that he was denied effective assistance of

counsel. He also challenged the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion he

filed on the ground that it was a second/successive motion.

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)). See also United States v.

Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A challenge to the

propriety of the federal conviction itself ... must proceed under § 2255, not

§ 2241.”) (citation omitted). 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

Appellate Case: 08-3136 Document: 01011987466 Date Filed: 07/02/2008 Page: 2
3

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 mere fact that he was denied relief under § 2255 does

not render it inadequate or ineffective. Id. “Failure to obtain relief under §

2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or

ineffective.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

Accordingly, the district court judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate

shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 08-3136 Document: 01011987466 Date Filed: 07/02/2008 Page: 3