Mata Rodriguez v. United States ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    December 23, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    TENTH CIRCUIT                   Clerk of Court
    ADRIAN MATA RODRIGUEZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    No. 11-3297
    v.                                            (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-03157-RDR)
    (D. Kan.)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. **
    Defendant-Appellant, Adrian Mata Rodriguez, appeals the district court’s
    dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition challenging the legality of his
    conviction for possession and distribution of methamphetamine, illegal possession
    of a firearm, and unlawful reentry. Aplt. Br. 5-7. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm. See Memorandum and Order, Mata
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    **
    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Rodriguez v. United States, No. 11-3157-RDR (D. Kan. Sept 8, 2011).
    On January 30, 2010, Mr. Mata Rodriguez sold methamphetamine to a
    police informant at an address in Kansas City, Kansas. Aplt. Br. 3. The
    informant was a methamphetamine dealer who assisted the police to reduce
    charges against himself. Aplt. Br. 2. Four days later, police executed a search
    warrant of the house where the sale took place, and recovered methamphetamine
    and firearms. See United States v. Mata-Rodriguez & Ponce-Acedo, Nos. 10-
    3272, 10-3273, 
    2011 WL 5009858
    , at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2011). Police
    stopped Mr. Mata Rodriguez with his co-defendant in a car a few blocks away
    from the house, and they were arrested; later, police found methamphetamine
    stashed in a seatbelt hole in the patrol car used to transport him. Id.; Aplt. Br. 3-
    4.
    We review the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. See
    Garza v. Davis, 
    596 F.3d 1198
    , 1203 (10th Cir. 2010). Mr. Mata Rodriguez
    argues that the case against him was based on information from an untested
    informant who was trying to escape prosecution himself, and therefore unreliable.
    Aplt. Br. 5-6. He also argues that, since he was merely a passenger in the car
    where police found the drugs, the drugs cannot be automatically attributed to him.
    Id. at 6-7.
    We agree with the district court that Mr. Mata Rodriguez incorrectly
    brought this action under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    . This court recently stated that
    -2-
    “Congress long ago decided that a federal prisoner’s attempt to attack the legality
    of his conviction or sentence generally must be brought under § 2255, and in the
    district court that convicted and sentenced him . . . . Meanwhile, § 2241 petitions
    . . . are generally reserved for complaints about the nature of a prisoner’s
    confinement . . . .” Prost v. Anderson, 
    636 F.3d 578
    , 581 (10th Cir. 2011).
    Furthermore, a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is
    confined. See Bradshaw v. Story, 
    86 F.3d 164
    , 166 (10th Cir. 1996).
    Here, Mr. Mata Rodriguez is incarcerated in New Jersey, and not in
    Kansas. Further, in order to challenge the legality of his conviction, he must file
    a § 2255 motion. The district court did not err in failing to construe his petition
    as a § 2255 motion because it is left to the discretion of the district court to do so.
    See Prost, 636 F.3d at 581. In fact, this court discourages district courts from
    recharacterizing petitions as § 2255 petitions “largely out of concern that a
    subsequent § 2255 motion would be considered successive and barred under
    ADEPA . . . .” United States v. Torres, 
    282 F.3d 1241
    , 1245 (10th Cir. 2002)
    (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, we AFFIRM.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-3297

Judges: Kelly, Hartz, Holmes

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024