Owens-El v. Warden Wiley , 182 F. App'x 803 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
May 30, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JAM ES JOSEPH O W ENS-EL,
Petitioner - A ppellant, No. 05-1423
v. D. Colorado
W AR DEN W ILEY; U.S. PARO LE (D.C. No. 05-CV-1088 ZLW )
A N D PR OB ATIO N
CO NG LOM ERA TE,
Respondent - Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before HA RTZ, EBEL, and T YM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
James Joseph Owens-El, a federal prisoner at the U nited States Penitentiary
in Florence, Colorado, appeals the dismissal by the U nited States D istrict Court
for the District of Colorado of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. W e review the dismissal of an application under § 2241 de
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
novo. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). W e have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the judgment of the district court.
In his expansive, nearly incomprehensible, briefs to this court, M r. Owens-
El appears to challenge his federal sentence because it was imposed, at least in
part, in consideration of a M aryland state-court conviction he received in 1968 as
a juvenile tried as an adult. M r. Owens-El claims that the 1968 conviction was
expunged from his record in 1997 as unconstitutional under Woodall v. Pettibone,
465 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1972). This claim constitutes an attack on the validity of
his federal sentence, cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than an attack on
the execution of his sentence, which would fall within the scope of applications
under § 2241.
Because § 2255 requires that a motion thereunder be filed in the sentencing
court, and M r. Owens-El was sentenced by the Central District of California
rather than the District of Colorado, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
consider his application when properly construed as a motion under § 2255.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of his application. See
Owens-El v. Hood, 117 F. App’x 35, 36 (10th Cir. 2004); cf. Owens-El v.
Surgure, 66 F. App’x 181 (10th Cir. 2003).
Also before us are M r. Owens-El’s motion seeking a writ of mandamus
from this court, filed M ay 4, 2006, and several other filings related to “Newly
Developed Evidence” and “New Facts.” Because we fail to discern what, if any,
-2-
action he seeks from this court, the motion is DENIED. To the extent that the
other filings seek relief, they relate to the claims in the § 2241 petition and are
similarly DISM ISSED as not cognizable under that statute.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-