Opinion ID: 6336322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sixth Issue

Text: Turner argues that a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which he previously filed, is inadequate because the record in such a petition does not reflect that he served his federal and state sentences concurrently. He claims this petition must be granted to correct the underlying judgment in Turner I, presumably so that a future § 2255 petition could be successful. This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Turner does not explain, nor can we discern, why he would be unable to make the same general arguments in a § 2255 petition that he makes now. He asks that the BOP be ordered to update his “computation summary” and that the BOP be ordered to recommend that the sentencing court in Turner I amend its judgment. In his reply, Turner makes a conclusory statement that he is challenging the BOP’s action rather than his sentence. But his request for relief appears targeted at the amount of time he is required to serve under his present sentence in Turner II, and nothing in his 8 Appellate Case: 21-6151 Document: 010110677612 Date Filed: 04/29/2022 Page: 9 arguments indicate why § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Prost, 636 F.3d at 580. Second, the relief Turner seeks does not appear to pertain to the manner in which his sentence is executed. Construing his brief liberally, Turner believes that the BOP was supposed to award him benefits like good-time credits, a lower security level designation, or certain privileges as if he had only one prior conviction. See Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162, 1165 n.2 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 2241 is the appropriate vehicle for challenging prison disciplinary matters such as deprivation of good-time credits). No matter how liberally we construe his brief, however, we cannot discern what specific benefits Turner believes he lost or how an updated judgment or recalculation of his time would entitle him to those benefits. Turner does not provide any basis in law or BOP policy that would require prison officials to provide those benefits to someone who has multiple prior convictions even though all were served concurrently. Because Turner does not actually ask for these benefits or specify what they might be, he has not met his burden of showing why § 2255 is not the appropriate vehicle to obtain the amended judgment he appears to seek. 9 Appellate Case: 21-6151 Document: 010110677612 Date Filed: 04/29/2022 Page: 10