UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOEL CORDOVA-ORDAZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-2175 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00805-RB-SCY and 

2:14-CR-03440-RB-1) 

(D. N. Mex.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Joel Cordova-Ordaz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 seeks a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 petition). Mr. Cordova-Ordaz also 

 

* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 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

1

 Because Mr. Cordova-Ordaz is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings 

liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also United 

States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e must construe [a pro se 

litigant’s] arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point 

at which we begin to serve as his advocate.”). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 3, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we deny both requests and dismiss this matter. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 In April 2010, Mr. Cordova-Ordaz pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute a quantity of cocaine greater than 500 grams in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 in 

the Western District of Texas. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by four 

years of supervised release. 

In October 2014, the court transferred jurisdiction of Mr. Cordova-Ordaz’s term of 

supervised release to the District of New Mexico. In March 2015, the district court in 

New Mexico revoked Mr. Cordova-Ordaz’s supervised release and sentenced him to four 

months in prison to run concurrently to another sentence imposed in a separate criminal 

case in the District of New Mexico. 

In September 2015, Mr. Cordova-Ordaz filed a § 2255 motion in the District of 

New Mexico, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in the Western District of 

Texas. The district court denied his motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under 

§ 2255(a). 

II. DISCUSSION 

When a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, we will 

issue a COA only if the movant shows it is “debatable whether the petition states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 

procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the 
- 3 - 

case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in 

dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 

Section 2255(a) permits a prisoner in custody to “move the court which imposed 

the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” Any other district court lacks 

jurisdiction. United States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1097 (10th Cir. 1980) (“Jurisdiction 

lies only in ‘the court which imposed the sentence.’” (quoting § 2255(a))). 

When a prisoner was convicted and sentenced in one court but then transferred to 

the supervisory control of a second court, only the first court has jurisdiction over a 

§ 2255 motion attacking the underlying conviction and sentence. See id. (finding that 

after a federal court in Oklahoma convicted and sentenced a prisoner and transferred 

supervisory control to a federal court in California, the Oklahoma court had exclusive 

jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion challenging the underlying proceedings in Oklahoma). 

As we explained in Condit, the “practical justifications for [this] result are strong.” 

Id. The first court more likely has “personal familiarity with the case,” and the “potential 

witnesses [likely] reside” near it. Id. at 1098 n.3 (quotations omitted). Moreover, “[i]f 

other circuits were to become the situses for routine collateral attacks on the procedures 

followed by district courts of the [circuit where the first court is located], there would be 

a substantial danger of inconsistent, even contradictory, decisions.” Id. at 1098. 

The district court’s ruling is not debatable under Condit. 
- 4 - 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny 

Mr. Cordova-Ordaz’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge