Filed: Jul. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ERIC ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 18-1233 v. (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00847-LTB) (D. Colo.) KLINE, Warden, Respondent - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. _ In April 2018, Petitioner Eric Adams, a federal prisoner in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in Florence, Colorado, filed a pro
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ERIC ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 18-1233 v. (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00847-LTB) (D. Colo.) KLINE, Warden, Respondent - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. _ In April 2018, Petitioner Eric Adams, a federal prisoner in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in Florence, Colorado, filed a pro s..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ERIC ADAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 18-1233
v. (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00847-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
KLINE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
In April 2018, Petitioner Eric Adams, a federal prisoner in custody of the Bureau
of Prisons (BOP) in Florence, Colorado, filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of Colorado. In this application,
he sought an injunction requiring BOP employees to wear gloves while serving food
trays, arguing their failure to do so violated the Eighth Amendment. In response, a
magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to amend his application, explaining challenges to
conditions of confinement must be brought in a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus
action.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 May 2018, Petitioner filed an amended application pursuant to § 2241
asserting his sentencing court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal case. The district court
denied this amended application because it was clear Petitioner was challenging his
conviction and sentence, not the execution of his sentence. Such a challenge could
only be brought in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the remedy
available under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. Because Petitioner failed to
show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, the
district court dismissed his amended application. The court also certified pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and thus any
appeal could not be taken in forma pauperis. The district court entered judgment, and
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Petitioner argues § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to argue his
lack of subject matter jurisdiction claim. He argues he would have to file his § 2255
motion in the Eastern District of New York, but because the Eastern District of New
York would not have jurisdiction over the warden of the prison in Colorado, the warden
would not be able to stand as respondent to his § 2255 motion. But “there is no
respondent involved in the [§ 2255] motion (unlike habeas) and the United States
Attorney, as prosecutor in the case in question, is the most appropriate one to defend
the judgment and oppose the motion.” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings,
Rule 4 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Eastern District of New York need
not have jurisdiction over the warden of the prison in Colorado. We, for the fourth
2
time, reject Petitioner’s claim that a § 2255 motion is inadequate and ineffective to
argue his lack of subject matter jurisdiction claim. See Adams v. Davis, 433 F. App’x
673 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished); Adams v. Wiley, 290 F. App’x 156 (10th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished); Adams v. Holt, No. 01-1274 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2001) (unpublished).
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3