Filed: Feb. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 5, 2018 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court EDWIN T. LIMBRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-6191 (D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00605-F) BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. After examining Petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 5, 2018 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court EDWIN T. LIMBRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-6191 (D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00605-F) BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. After examining Petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not m..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 5, 2018
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
EDWIN T. LIMBRICK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 17-6191
(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00605-F)
BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
After examining Petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Edwin Limbrick, an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
In 1996, Petitioner was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas of conspiring to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery,
obstructing interstate commerce by robbery, and using or carrying a firearm (or
aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm) during a crime of violence.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentences. Petitioner thereafter
filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Texas, which the court
denied.
In 2011 and 2014, he filed additional § 2255 motions, both of which were
denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner had not
received certification from the Fifth Circuit prior to filing his successive § 2255
motions.
In 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petition for § 2241 relief in the Western
District of Oklahoma, contending that he was entitled to relief based on recent
Supreme Court decisions in Rosemond v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014),
and Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Although he acknowledged
that a challenge to the legality of a conviction must generally be brought under
§ 2255 in the jurisdiction where the conviction and sentence were entered, he
argued that he was entitled to relief under § 2241 because the remedy provided by
§ 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
The magistrate judge concluded, and the district court agreed, that
Petitioner had failed to show that the remedy provided under § 2255 was
-2-
inadequate or ineffective. He had not shown, for instance, that he was or would
have been unable to obtain permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive
§ 2255 motion after the Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive on collateral
review in Welch v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), assuming Johnson was
actually applicable to his claims. The district court therefore dismissed the
§ 2241 action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
We see no error in this decision. For substantially the same reasons stated
by the magistrate judge and district court, we AFFIRM the dismissal of this
action for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-