Jesse L. Barela v. A.W. JACKSON, Warden, in his individual capacity

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JESSE L. BARELA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A.W. JACKSON, Warden, in his
individual capacity; SONYA K. CHAVEZ,
USMS; DONALD W. WASHINGTON,
Director, USMS,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 21-2040
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00240-WJ-CG)
(D. N.M.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Petitioner-Appellant Jesse L. Barela appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Mr. Barela is currently in custody at Cibola
County Correctional Center awaiting trial on federal charges related to an armed
robbery. On March 18, 2021, he filed a § 2241 petition requesting that the district
court set a bond hearing or release him from custody based on seven grounds of
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 23, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
relief. R. 3–13. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice
concluding that a § 2241 petition is not appropriate for a prisoner awaiting trial and
because Mr. Barela had not exhausted his claims before the district judge presiding
over his case. See Barela v. Jackson, No. 21-cv-240 WJ-CG, 2021 WL 1267914
(D.N.M. Apr. 6, 2021); R. 29 (Final Judgment). We affirm the district court’s
decision.
Generally speaking, Ҥ 2241 is not a proper avenue of relief for federal
prisoners awaiting federal trial.” Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir.
2017). While Mr. Barela does allege constitutional and statutory violations, see
§ 2241(c)(3), the proper course of action is to “proceed[] by motion to the trial court,
followed by a possible appeal after judgment, before resorting to habeas relief,”
Medina, 875 F.3d at 1029. This is consistent with our rule that a federal pretrial
detainee typically “must exhaust other available remedies” in order to be eligible for
relief under § 2241. Id. at 1028 (quoting Hall v. Pratt, 97 F. App’x 246, 247 (10th
Cir. 2004)); see Ray v. Denham, 626 F. App’x 218, 219 (10th Cir. 2015).
Here, Mr. Barela did not raise most of his claims to the presiding district judge
when he filed his § 2241 petition. The docket reflects that he did not file any
motions regarding the district judge’s delegation of authority, the Warden Act of
2005, the alleged absence of a bond hearing, excessive bond, concerns over COVID-
19 reinfection, or the Foreign Immunities Act. See Docket, United States v. Barela,
No. 1:20-cr-01228-KWR (D.N.M. filed March 24, 2020). And while Mr. Barela did
file a motion to hire new counsel, which relates to his claim of ineffective assistance,
Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the district court ultimately allowed him to seek out and hire new counsel. See id.,
ECF Nos. 58, 62. Therefore, the district court appropriately concluded that Mr.
Barela is not entitled to habeas relief under § 2241.
AFFIRMED. Mr. Barela’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --