Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Lewis v. Andrews, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior state felony drug conviction. The district court denied the petition, finding that Lewis failed to show that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. The appellate court affirmed, noting that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy to challenge the validity of a sentence unless it is shown to be inadequate or ineffective. Lewis failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy was legally inadequate. The denial of previous § 2255 motions or permission for successive motions does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Lewis v. Andrews, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    36 views3 pages
    Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior state felony drug conviction. The district court denied the petition, finding that Lewis failed to show that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. The appellate court affirmed, noting that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy to challenge the validity of a sentence unless it is shown to be inadequate or ineffective. Lewis failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy was legally inadequate. The denial of previous § 2255 motions or permission for successive motions does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-3346

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior state felony drug conviction. The district court denied the petition, finding that Lewis failed to show that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. The appellate court affirmed, noting that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy to challenge the validity of a sentence unless it is shown to be inadequate or ineffective. Lewis failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy was legally inadequate. The denial of previous § 2255 motions or permission for successive motions does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    36 views3 pages

    Lewis v. Andrews, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior state felony drug conviction. The district court denied the petition, finding that Lewis failed to show that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. The appellate court affirmed, noting that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy to challenge the validity of a sentence unless it is shown to be inadequate or ineffective. Lewis failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy was legally inadequate. The denial of previous § 2255 motions or permission for successive motions does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    OCT 16 2001

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS
    LEWIS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    RAY ANDREWS, Warden, Federal
    Correctional Institution, Taft,
    California,

    No. 00-3346
    (D.C. No. 99-CV-3176-DES)
    (D. Kansas )

    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. 2255
    is 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 courts August 22, 2000 Order is AFFIRMED. The mandate
    will issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court
    PER CURIAM

    You might also like