F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 14 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM MICHAEL FURMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 96-1430
v. D. Colorado
J. W. BOOKER, Warden, FCI, Florence, (D.C. No. 96-Z-748)
Colorado,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
William Michael Furman appeals the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction and held that Furman was required to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
before the sentencing court. We affirm.
Mr. Furman alleged in his petition and various other filings in the district court that
his convictions in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the District of New Mexico were
void for lack of jurisdiction, and sought immediate release from confinement. The
magistrate judge ordered Furman to show cause why he should not be required to file the
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Furman filed some documents, none of which were
responsive to the show cause order, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
Furman then made numerous filings in the district court. The district court liberally
construed these documents as objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, found
none responsive, and dismissed Furman’s petition.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Furman’s habeas petition. See
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). In his appellate brief, Furman
alleges various violations in his prosecutions and convictions, and argues that the New
Mexico and Louisiana district courts “lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters
alleged” against him. Appellant’s Br. at 20.1
In his appellate brief, Mr. Furman alleges, without factual support, that he has
1
been denied access to a constitutionally acceptable law library. This argument was
arguably raised below, also without support. This argument is conclusory, unsupported
and without merit. See United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir. 1994).
-2-
Section 2255 prohibits the district court from entertaining an application for a writ
of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief under
section 2255 “if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to
the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also
appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. If section 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective, then a prisoner may proceed with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th
Cir. 1963).
Mr. Furman attacks the jurisdiction of the sentencing courts, the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the District of New Mexico, but has not
applied to those courts for relief. Furthermore, nothing in the record leads us to conclude
that the remedy under section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Construing his pro se
appeal liberally as we must, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), Mr.
Furman has failed to meet the requirements of section 2255.2
2
We deny Furman’s motions entitled, “Motion to Consolidate Appeal from
U.S.D.C.’s Order of Dismissal on August 28, 1996, Into No. 96-1283 and for Expedited
Hearing,” and “Objection and First Amendment Rights Petition to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Sitting In Common Law to Redress Grievances of Fraud on
and by the Court.” Both documents contain various rambling and unintelligible
arguments, including a claim that the district court, the Clerk of the Tenth Circuit, and
others committed fraud by using secret language in the records and not treating him as a
Christian man under the common law. These arguments are wholly without merit.
-3-
For the foregoing reasons, and those ably set forth in the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and district court’s order, we AFFIRM the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-4-