Banks v. Warden, FTC, Oklahoma

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 9, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FREDERICK BANKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 11-6192
v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00151-C)
W.D. Oklahoma
WARDEN, FTC, OKLAHOMA;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and the 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 court therefore orders the case 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Frederick Banks, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Invoking the
Administrative Procedures Act, three repealed statutes, and his own gross
misinterpretation of the Indian canon of construction, Banks argues the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) failed to properly calculate his earned credits and the United
States Parole Commission failed to consider him for parole. The district court
dismissed with prejudice all Banks’s claims against all Defendants, concluding
the habeas action was successive because Banks has previously raised the claims
in prior § 2241 actions. See Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262, 1269-70 (10th Cir.
2010) (holding that the bar on second or successive habeas petitions and the
abuse-of-the-writ doctrine apply to § 2241 petitions when petitioner is attempting
to raise issues that were or could have been decided in prior habeas actions).
Our jurisdiction over Banks’s appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Having reviewed Banks’s appellate brief, the magistrate judge’s Reports and
Recommendations, the district court’s Order, and the entire record on appeal, we
affirm the dismissal of Banks’s § 2241 habeas petition for substantially the
reasons stated by the district court. We deny Banks’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-2-