Lewis v. Andrews

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 16 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS
LEWIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 00-3346
v. (D.C. No. 99-CV-3176-DES)
(D. Kansas )
RAY ANDREWS, Warden, Federal
Correctional Institution, Taft,
California,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the response brief 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Christopher C. Lewis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court order
denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner Lewis filed a § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his
sentence by a state felony drug conviction. The district court denied the petition
finding that he failed to establish that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255is inadequate or ineffective. This timely appeal followed.
Because Petitioner is challenging the legality of his sentence, the district
court correctly concluded that his petition should have been brought under § 2255
and not § 2241. It is well-settled that a motion under § 2255 is the exclusive
remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence unless there is a
showing that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86
F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, the remedy under § 2241 is not an
additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that prescribed under § 2255.
Id.; Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963), cert. denied,
377 U.S. 980 (1964).
Petitioner was ordered by this court to show cause why the district court
order should not be summarily affirmed. In his response, he fails to demonstrate
that the remedy under § 2255 is legally inadequate or ineffective. The § 2255
remedy is not inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 relief has
previously been denied, see Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166, or because Petitioner has
2
been denied permission under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d
753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179
(10th Cir. 1999).
The district court’s August 22, 2000 Order is AFFIRMED. The mandate
will issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
PER CURIAM
3