FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
GREGORY D. CROSBY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 20-1284
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01726-LTB-GPG)
BILL TRUE, Warden (D. Colo.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Gregory D. Crosby, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 2 and
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. We grant his motion to
proceed ifp.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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. Crosby appears pro se “we liberally construe his filings, but we will
not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
2
A federal prisoner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to seek
review of a district court's denial of a habeas petition under § 2241. See Eldridge v.
Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015).
Mr. Crosby is serving a 262-month sentence at the United States Penitentiary-
ADX Florence. In his § 2241 petition, Mr. Crosby claimed that the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) must transfer him to United States Penitentiary-Leavenworth and grant him time
credits for completing evidence-based recidivism reduction (“EBRR”) programming.
The district court dismissed the transfer claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
and did not address the claim for time credits.
Before filing his § 2241 petition, Mr. Crosby brought virtually identical claims in
another § 2241 proceeding, Crosby v. True, No. 1:19-cv-03199-WJM (D. Colo.). 3 The
district court in that case dismissed the transfer claim for lack of jurisdiction and rejected
Mr. Crosby’s claim for time credits on the merits. We recently affirmed the district
court’s dismissal of that petition. See Crosby v. True (“Crosby I”), No. 20-1221, 2020
WL 5415809 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished).
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the transfer claim for the reasons we
stated in Crosby I. There, we found that Mr. Crosby’s request to be transferred to another
BOP facility was not cognizable as a § 2241 petition and that the district court did not err
in declining sua sponte to convert Mr. Crosby’s claim into a Bivens action. Id. at *1.
In Crosby I, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Crosby’s EBRR time
credits claim because he did not challenge the ruling on appeal. Id. at *2. Because the
3
In his brief, Mr. Crosby notes that this case presents “the identical claims, [that]
are similar in their content” to the claims raised in that petition. Aplt. Br. at 3 n.1.
2
district court in this case did not address Mr. Crosby’s EBRR claim, we remand for the
court to address it.
* * * *
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Crosby’s transfer claim, remand to
address Mr. Crosby’s EBRR claim, and grant Mr. Crosby’s motion to proceed ifp.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
3