Cornelius Kenyatta Craig v. United States of America

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
CORNELIUS KENYATTA CRAIG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 20-1318
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01698-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal stems from Mr. Cornelius Kenyatta Craig’s habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the habeas petition, Mr. Craig
challenges the validity of his sentence. The district court dismissed the
petition, ruling that Mr. Craig’s sole remedy lay in a motion to vacate the
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Craig appeals, arguing that (1) he
* We conclude that oral argument would not materially aid our
consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir.
R. 34.1(G). We have thus decided the appeal based on the record and Mr.
Craig’s brief.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 14, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1318 Document: 010110507489 Date Filed: 04/14/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
showed cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice to avoid a
procedural default, (2) the limitations period was equitably tolled, and
(3) he showed that a motion under § 2255 would be inadequate and
ineffective. We affirm.
Mr. Craig’s appellate argument reflects confusion as to three distinct
issues: (1) procedural default, (2) timeliness, and (3) statutory jurisdiction.
The district court rejected the claim based on the third issue—statutory
jurisdiction. But Mr. Craig’s appellate arguments relate primarily to the
first and second issues.
The first issue, procedural default, involves a federal court’s refusal
to consider a § 2255 motion when a federal prisoner failed to properly
pursue the claim on direct appeal. United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312,
1320 (10th Cir. 1993). But the district court didn’t rely on procedural
default. So this argument doesn’t help Mr. Craig.
The second issue, timeliness, relates to a limitations period
applicable to federal prisoners challenging a sentence under § 2255.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). But Mr. Craig is challenging the sentence under
§ 2241 (rather than § 2255), and there is no statute of limitations for
petitions invoking § 2241. As a result, the district court didn’t rely on
timeliness. So this argument does not help Mr. Craig either.
The district court instead relied solely on a lack of statutory
jurisdiction. In addressing statutory jurisdiction, the court relied on two
Appellate Case: 20-1318 Document: 010110507489 Date Filed: 04/14/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
distinct ways that a federal prisoner can collaterally challenge the validity
of a sentence: (1) a habeas petition under § 2241 and (2) a motion to vacate
a sentence under § 2255. A habeas action under § 2241 is available only if
a motion to vacate the sentence under § 2255 would prove inadequate or
ineffective. Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 581 (10th Cir. 2011). And the
remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective only if the federal
prisoner lacked an opportunity to test the legality of his conviction or
sentence in a motion to vacate under § 2255. Id. at 584, 588. This
opportunity is considered unavailable only if the federal prisoner could not
have raised the claim in an initial § 2255 motion. Id. at 584.
The district court concluded that Mr. Craig had failed to show that a
remedy under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective. In response, Mr.
Craig argues that he has not been provided an “adequate or effective
opportunity to test the legality of his detention on direct review.”
Appellant’s Opening Br. at 7. But Mr. Craig does not question his ability
to raise his claim in a § 2255 motion. We thus affirm the dismissal of Mr.
Craig’s habeas petition.
In connection with the appeal, Mr. Craig moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and amend his opening brief. We grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, but we deny leave to amend the opening brief.
In the motion for leave to amend the opening brief, Mr. Craig argues
that a pending Supreme Court case (Edwards v. Vannoy, 140 S. Ct. 2737
Appellate Case: 20-1318 Document: 010110507489 Date Filed: 04/14/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(2020)) will address the merits of his underlying claim. But again, the
district court concluded that the absence of statutory jurisdiction prevented
consideration of the merits. So the anticipated Supreme Court opinion is
unlikely to affect the outcome. We thus affirm the dismissal without
waiting for the Supreme Court to decide Edwards v. Vannoy.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1318 Document: 010110507489 Date Filed: 04/14/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --