Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Brown v. Berkebile, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes a district court case in which Timothy Brown, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed the petition, finding it lacked statutory jurisdiction because Brown failed to show the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Brown appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding Brown's claims could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion and he failed to demonstrate the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate. It therefore dismissed Brown's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Brown v. Berkebile, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    25 views8 pages
    This order summarizes a district court case in which Timothy Brown, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed the petition, finding it lacked statutory jurisdiction because Brown failed to show the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Brown appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding Brown's claims could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion and he failed to demonstrate the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate. It therefore dismissed Brown's petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1159

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order summarizes a district court case in which Timothy Brown, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed the petition, finding it lacked statutory jurisdiction because Brown failed to show the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Brown appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding Brown's claims could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion and he failed to demonstrate the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate. It therefore dismissed Brown's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    25 views8 pages

    Brown v. Berkebile, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes a district court case in which Timothy Brown, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed the petition, finding it lacked statutory jurisdiction because Brown failed to show the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Brown appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding Brown's claims could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion and he failed to demonstrate the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate. It therefore dismissed Brown's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 8

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    July 21, 2014


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.

    No. 14-1159
    (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00162-LTB)
    (D. Colo.)

    D. BERKEBILE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

    Timothy Demitri Brown, a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution


    in Florence, Colorado, appearing pro se,1 appeals the district courts dismissal of his
    application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Mr. Brown argued
    *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) and 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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed.
    R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    1

    Because Mr. Brown is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See
    Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). [T]his rule of liberal construction stops,
    however, at the point at which we begin to serve as his advocate. United States v.
    Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009).

    before the district court that (1) he is entitled to the relief [his co-defendant] was granted
    by the Supreme Court; (2) the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence proving Mr.
    Browns innocence; and (3) [the statutes under which he was convicted] do not apply to
    Mr. Brown and he is therefore factually innocent. ROA, Vol. I at 56.
    The district court determined Mr. Brown was attempting to challenge his
    conviction and sentence and had failed to demonstrate the remedy available to him in the
    sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. It therefore
    dismissed his application for lack of statutory jurisdiction. Mr. Brown appeals and
    requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp). Exercising jurisdiction under 1291,
    we affirm the district court, dismiss Mr. Browns petition, and deny his motion to
    proceed ifp.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Mr. Brown was convicted of eight counts of drug-related offenses in violation of
    21 U.S.C. 841 and 846 in the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Louisiana. The court sentenced him to life in prison on May 10, 2002. The United States
    Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. See United
    States v. Brown, 86 F. Appx 749 (5th Cir. 2004). Mr. Brown did not file a petition for
    certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.2

    Mr. Brown asserted in his Motion to Reconsider before the district court in the
    District of Colorado that he did file for certiorari. The district court determined that Mr.
    Brown filed a petition for certiorari on December 23, 2002before the Fifth Circuit
    Continued . . .
    -2-

    On January 24, 2005, Mr. Brown filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in the Western
    District of Louisiana. On January 20, 2006, the court adopted a magistrate judges report
    and recommendation to deny Mr. Browns 2255 motion.
    Meanwhile, Mr. Browns co-defendant, Kenneth Wayne Pearson, filed a writ of
    certiorari to the Supreme Court, which remanded Mr. Pearsons case to the Fifth Circuit
    for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See Pearson
    v. United States, 543 U.S. 1116 (2005) (mem.). The Fifth Circuit remanded Mr.
    Pearsons case to the district court for resentencing. United States v. Pearson, 128 F.
    Appx 409 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
    Mr. Brown filed a motion in Mr. Pearsons remanded appeal to recall the mandate
    from his direct appeal, but the Fifth Circuit refused. Mr. Brown filed a petition for
    certiorari from this order, which the Supreme Court denied. Brown v. United States, 546
    U.S. 1118 (2006) (mem.).
    Finally, on January 21, 2014, Mr. Brown filed a 2241 petition in the United
    States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court entered an Order to
    Show Cause as to why he did not have an adequate and effective remedy in the
    sentencing court in the Western District of Louisiana. After Mr. Brown filed a response,

    affirmed his conviction and sentence on February 11, 2004. See ROA, Vol. I at 68. The
    Supreme Court dismissed the petition as a writ of certiorari before judgment. Id. The
    district court concluded this petition was not from the Fifth Circuits affirmance on direct
    appeal.
    -3-

    the district court dismissed his petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction because he failed
    to make a sufficient showing.
    II. DISCUSSION
    Mr. Brown now appeals, contending: (1) the Tenth Circuits precedent regarding
    adequate or effective remedies under 2255 violates his equal protection rights3 because
    it conflicts with the law of all other circuits, (2) he is actually innocent, and (3) the Tenth
    Circuits precedent conflicts with Supreme Court precedent regarding the fundamental
    miscarriage of justice exception to procedural bars of habeas petitions.4 He also moves to
    proceed ifp.
    As a general rule, federal prisoners may challenge their convictions or sentences
    only under 28 U.S.C. 2255. They may challenge the execution of their sentences under
    28 U.S.C. 2241. A 2255 motion must be filed with the sentencing court, see id.
    2255(a); Mr. Brown was sentenced in the Western District of Louisiana. A 2241
    motion must be filed in the federal district court where the movant is incarcerated, see id.
    2241(d); Mr. Brown is imprisoned in Colorado.
    A federal prisoner cannot bring more than one 2255 challenge unless a second or
    successive one is based on (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
    light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
    3

    Although Mr. Brown does not specify the source of his equal protection claim,
    we presume it is based on the Fifth Amendment.
    4

    We have reordered his arguments for ease of presentation.


    -4-

    evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
    offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
    review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. 2255(h).
    Mr. Brown attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence under 2241 in
    conflict with the general rule that such challenges must be brought under 2255. He
    may rely on 2241 only under a narrow exception called the savings clause contained
    in 2255(e). The savings clause would allow him to bring his 2241 challenge only if a
    2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28
    U.S.C. 2255(e). We agree with the district court that the exception does not apply here.
    In Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584 (10th Cir. 2011), we held the savings
    clause question is whether a petitioners argument challenging the legality of his
    detention could have been tested in an initial 2255 motion. Mr. Brown has failed to
    show how any of the three issues in his 2241 petition could not have been tested
    through a 2255 motion.
    Mr. Brown already has brought one unsuccessful 2255 challenge in the Western
    District of Louisiana. He has not attempted to bring a second one. Even if he were
    precluded from doing so under 2255(h), that does not establish the remedy in 2255 is
    inadequate. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999); see Prost, 636
    F.3d at 586.
    On appeal, Mr. Brown appears to argue that other circuits would allow his 2241
    challenge based on the erroneous circuit foreclosure test. Under this test, 2255 would
    -5-

    be inadequate or ineffective if Fifth Circuit law, at the time he was convicted and
    sentenced, erroneously foreclosed, based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision, the
    habeas claims he wishes to bring here. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d
    893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizing the test); see also Prost, 636 F.3d at 591
    (describing the erroneous circuit foreclosure test).
    Of the three claims alleged in Mr. Browns 2241 petition, this test has nothing to
    do with his allegation that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and violated his
    due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), or that he was
    convicted under statutes that do not apply to him. These claims plainly could have been
    brought under 2255. Even if his remaining claimthat he is entitled to the relief his
    co-defendant received on remand following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
    (2005)would qualify under the erroneous circuit foreclosure test for consideration
    under 2241, we rejected that test in Prost. 636 F.3d at 595.
    Mr. Brown states our decision in Prost is different from every other circuit5 and
    argues our rejection of the erroneous circuit foreclosure test violates equal protection.
    Aplt. Br. at 3. We reject this argument because a circuit split does not deny Mr. Brown
    equal protection. See Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2014); Habibi v.
    Holder, 673 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).

    Mr. Prost fails to recognize that the circuit courts have applied different tests and
    have not, as we explained in Prost, uniformly adopted the erroneous circuit foreclosure
    test. See 636 F.3d at 590-93.
    -6-

    Mr. Browns arguments that he is actually innocent and that our failure to follow
    the other circuits in Prost violates the Supreme Courts fundamental miscarriage of
    justice exception are equally unavailing. This exception allows courts discretion to
    grant federal habeas relief in spite of procedural barssuch as the bar on second and
    successive 2255 motionswhere a constitutional violation has probably resulted in
    the conviction of one who is actually innocent. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496
    (1986); see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) ([H]abeas courts [have
    discretion] to see that federal constitutional errors do not result in the incarceration of
    innocent persons.). Mr. Brown has not shown how his actual innocence claim could not
    have been tested in a 2255 motion. See Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169
    (10th Cir. 2011) (petitioner bears the burden to show 2255 inadequate or ineffective).
    Mr. Brown also does not show how Prost conflicts with this exception.
    In sum, Mr. Brown has failed to show why a 2255 motion in the Western
    District of Louisiana is inadequate or ineffective under 2255(e) so as to allow him to
    bring his claims in the District of Colorado under 2241.
    As to Mr. Browns motion to proceed ifp, the district court denied his motion for
    leave to proceed on appeal ifp pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 because it determined any
    appeal from the order was not in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
    438, 445 (1962) (We consider a defendant's good faith in this type of case demonstrated
    when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.). We agree with the district
    court, conclude this appeal is frivolous, and deny Mr. Browns motion to proceed ifp.
    -7-

    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court and dismiss this case for
    lack of statutory jurisdiction. We also deny Mr. Browns motion to proceed ifp.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Scott M. Matheson, Jr.


    Circuit Judge

    -8-

    You might also like