UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GREGORY D. CROSBY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

BILL TRUE, Warden

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 20-1284 

(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01726-LTB-GPG) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Gregory D. Crosby, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 appeals the district 

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 22412

 and 

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. We grant his motion to 

proceed ifp. 

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of 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. 

1 Because Mr. Crosby appears pro se “we liberally construe his filings, but we will 

not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 

2

 A federal prisoner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to seek 

review of a district court's denial of a habeas petition under § 2241. See Eldridge v. 

Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 5, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court
2 

Mr. Crosby is serving a 262-month sentence at the United States PenitentiaryADX Florence. In his § 2241 petition, Mr. Crosby claimed that the Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”) must transfer him to United States Penitentiary-Leavenworth and grant him time 

credits for completing evidence-based recidivism reduction (“EBRR”) programming. 

The district court dismissed the transfer claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction 

and did not address the claim for time credits. 

Before filing his § 2241 petition, Mr. Crosby brought virtually identical claims in 

another § 2241 proceeding, Crosby v. True, No. 1:19-cv-03199-WJM (D. Colo.).3

 The 

district court in that case dismissed the transfer claim for lack of jurisdiction and rejected 

Mr. Crosby’s claim for time credits on the merits. We recently affirmed the district 

court’s dismissal of that petition. See Crosby v. True (“Crosby I”), No. 20-1221, 2020 

WL 5415809 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished). 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the transfer claim for the reasons we 

stated in Crosby I. There, we found that Mr. Crosby’s request to be transferred to another 

BOP facility was not cognizable as a § 2241 petition and that the district court did not err 

in declining sua sponte to convert Mr. Crosby’s claim into a Bivens action. Id. at *1.

In Crosby I, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Crosby’s EBRR time 

credits claim because he did not challenge the ruling on appeal. Id. at *2. Because the 

3

 In his brief, Mr. Crosby notes that this case presents “the identical claims, [that] 

are similar in their content” to the claims raised in that petition. Aplt. Br. at 3 n.1. 
3 

district court in this case did not address Mr. Crosby’s EBRR claim, we remand for the 

court to address it. 

* * * * 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Crosby’s transfer claim, remand to 

address Mr. Crosby’s EBRR claim, and grant Mr. Crosby’s motion to proceed ifp. 

Entered for the Court 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge