F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 31 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ARTHUR MORRISON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-1455
(D. Colo.)
MICHAEL PUGH, (D.Ct. No. 98-D-2356)
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL, and LUCERO, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Arthur Morrison, a prisoner appearing pro se, appeals 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. We affirm.
Mr. Morrison previously filed two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
under § 2241, which we denied. See Morrison v. Guzik, Nos. 97-6351 and 97-
6416, 1998 WL 380539 (10th Cir. Jun. 30, 1998) (unpublished); Morrison v.
Pugh, No. 98-1278, 1998 WL 704670 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 1998) (unpublished). In
the latter proceeding, Mr. Morrison claimed the District Court for the Southern
District of New York lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him. Morrison
v. Pugh, 1998 WL 704670 at *1. We affirmed the district court’s determination
that Mr. Morrison’s petition attacked the validity of his conviction and sentence
and, therefore, could not be brought under § 2241. Id.
In the proceeding now before us, Mr. Morrison makes the same argument
but contends the jurisdictional issue was somehow not properly presented in the
prior action. He attempts to spin the same argument, claiming federal authorities
improperly kidnaped him from the State of New Jersey and tried him in New
York, where the court lacked the appropriate jurisdiction. He concludes by
arguing the district court erred in dismissing his petition without an evidentiary
hearing, and requesting the transfer of his case to a federal district court in New
-2-
Jersey.
We review the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Morrison’s habeas corpus
petition de novo. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). In
Mr. Morrison’s previous case, we explained the purpose of § 2241 and advised
that attacks on the legality of a conviction and sentence must be brought under
§ 2255. Morrison v. Pugh, 1998 WL 704670 at *1(“‘[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 where the prisoner is confined.... The exclusive remedy for
testing the validity of a judgment and sentence ... is that provided for in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.’” (Quoting Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166.)) We have reviewed the record
and conclude, for substantially the same reasons as before, the district court did
not err in dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, or in
failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. As the district court noted, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 provides an adequate and effective remedy for Mr. Morrison to test the
validity of his criminal conviction and sentence in the district court in New York.
Mr. Morrison also renews his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As we
previously instructed, to succeed on such a motion Mr. Morrison “‘must show a
financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned,
-3-
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal.’” Morrison at *2 (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505
(10th Cir. 1991)). We twice before rejected Mr. Morrison’s § 2241 petitions
attacking his conviction and sentence. We find Mr. Morrision fails to present a
reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law or merits for bringing the present
petition on the same issue, and therefore, we deny his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-4-