F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 12 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL KIRK LEGGETT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. Case No. 97-1457
(D.C. No. 97-D-1848)
JOHN M. HURLEY, (District of Colorado)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, 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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Michael Kirk Leggett appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The district court
determined that Mr. Leggett was attacking the legality of his detention, rather
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
than the execution of his sentence, and, therefore, that his petition should have
been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district that imposed his sentence, the
Northern District of Ohio. See Rec. vol. I, doc. 7, at 3-5 (Dist. Ct.’s Order filed
Dec. 8, 1997). The district court also noted that Mr. Leggett has already filed
three unsuccessful § 2255 petitions in that court, the last of which was dismissed
summarily. See id. at 3.
On appeal, Mr. Leggett urges the same issues he did before the trial court:
(1) that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and thus was
unconstitutionally convicted of bank robbery, assault on a federal officer, and
violation of supervised release and (2) that, because his sentence was invalid on
the above listed charges and he has already served thirty-six months, the length of
his sentence for assaulting a correctional employee, he must be released.
We review the district court’s denial of Mr. Leggett’s habeas corpus
petition de novo. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). We
agree with the district court that the alleged denial of counsel Mr. Leggett
complains of attacks the legality of his detention rather than the execution of his
sentence. In Bradshaw, this Court held that a § 2255 petition filed with the
sentencing court is the proper method for a prisoner to attack the legality of his
detention. See Bradshaw, 164 F.3d at 166.
A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a
sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district
-2-
where the prisoner is confined. It is not an additional, alternative, or
supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention
and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence. . . .
The exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment
and sentence, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, is that provided
for in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. More specifically, § 2255 prohibits a
district court from entertaining an application for a writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief
by motion pursuant to § 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.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). Mr. Leggett has
applied for and been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by the court which
sentenced him, and he does not allege that the § 2255 motion was “inadequate or
ineffective” to challenge his conviction. Mere “[f]ailure to obtain relief under
2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or
ineffective.” Id.
Mr. Leggett attempts unsuccessfully to distinguish Bradshaw in his brief to
this Court:
In Bradshaw . . . the petitioner’s claim was that unconstitutional state
convictions were used to enhance his federal sentence. . . . Bradshaw
. . . is not on point with the petitioner’s case. The district court
should have held and [sic.] evidentiary hear [sic.] on the petitioner’s
claim of denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Aplt’s Opening Br. at Memorandum 2. Mr. Leggett is right that his petition relies
on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel while the petitioner in Bradshaw relied
-3-
on the use of allegedly unconstitutional convictions to enhance his sentence, but
he presents us with a factual distinction that is not legally significant.
Bradshaw’s mandate is clear: To attack the validity of his sentence, as Mr.
Leggett wishes to do, he must file a § 2255 petition with the court that sentenced
him.
In sum, as to his first claim, Mr. Leggett’s proper method for challenging
his bank robbery and related convictions is a § 2255 petition filed with the court
that sentenced him, an effort which has proved unsuccessful on three previous
occasions. As to his second claim, it is only viable if he is successful in his first
claim, which, as we have explained, is not properly before us. Therefore, the
district court was correct in dismissing Mr. Leggett’s § 2241 petition, and its
order is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-