DocketNumber: 09-40984
Citation Numbers: 394 F. App'x 61
Judges: Davis, Per Curiam, Smith, Southwick
Filed Date: 8/30/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/3/2023
Case: 09-40984 Document: 00511219410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 30, 2010 No. 09-40984 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk COY LYNN OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, veersus KEITH ROY, Warden, Texarkana FCI, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CV-227 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Coy Owens, federal prisoner # 04702-078, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal from the dismissal of his28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-40984 Document: 00511219410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2010 No. 09-40984 which challenged his convictions for various mail fraud offenses and arson. He argued that his speedy trial rights were violated and that he was actually inno- cent of the offense of conviction. Because the district court determined that Owens’s claims were challenges to his conviction under28 U.S.C. § 2255
, it dis- missed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. A movant for IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. Carson v. Polley,689 F.2d 562
, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Owens argues that his claims fall within the savings clause of28 U.S.C. § 2255
because Zedner v. United States,547 U.S. 489
(2006), establishes his innocence and could not have been previously raised. A § 2241 petition at- tacking custody resulting from a federally-imposed sentence may be considered only where the petitioner establishes that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States,243 F.3d 893
, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). To show that § 2255 was rendered inadequate or ineffective, Owens must show that his claim (1) “is based on a retroactively ap- plicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena,243 F.3d at 904
. Zedner,547 U.S. at 500-09
, dealt with issues relating to the Speedy Trial Act. Because Zedner does not establish that Owens was convicted of a nonexis- tent offense, we need not determine whether Zedner is retroactive or whether Owens’s claim was foreclosed when he filed his prior § 2255 motion or direct ap- peal. Owens also argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition by virtue of his transfer to Minnesota. The only district that may consider a habeas corpus challenge pursuant to § 2241 is the district in which the prisoner is confined at the time he filed his § 2241 petition. Rumsfeld v. 2 Case: 09-40984 Document: 00511219410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/30/2010 No. 09-40984 Padilla,542 U.S. 426
, 442-43 (2004); Lee v. Wetzel,244 F.3d 370
, 375 n.5 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Owens was confined in the Eastern District of Texas at the time he filed the present § 2241 petition, the district court did not err by consid- ering the petition. See Padilla,542 U.S. at 442-43
. Owens has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate is- sue. See Carson,689 F.2d at 586
. Accordingly, we DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal, and we DISMISS Owens’s appeal as frivolous. See Baugh v. Tay- lor,117 F.3d 197
, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Owens’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Owens is WARNED that future frivo- lous filings may result in the imposition of sanctions. 3
Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893 ( 2001 )
Lee v. Wetzel , 244 F.3d 370 ( 2001 )
Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans , 117 F.3d 197 ( 1997 )
Arthur Wayne Carson, Cross-Appellee v. Officer Polley, ... , 689 F.2d 562 ( 1982 )
Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 124 S. Ct. 2711 ( 2004 )