Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

170 F.3d 1145

Docket No. 98-5522.

Sugarman v. Pitzer

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1999-04-02

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[Section] 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to federal detention under 2241. Just as clearly, however, 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention under 2241, since 'the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lorenzo Montez v. Mark McKinna

“the final order in a proceeding under section 2255”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Cepero

Relies on McIntosh v. United States Parole Commission · Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1999-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2013

8 federal appellate ·

120199920002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

(District Court No. 98cv02147)

Neil Paris Sugarman, pro se.

Before: WALD, RANDOLPH, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court dismissed the petition, and this court must now determine whether appeals challenging the dismissal of a habeas petition brought by a federal prisoner pursuant to § 2241 are included within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) certificate of appealability (COA) requirement. We hold that a COA is not required for federal prisoner § 2241 appeals.

¶2

Under the AEDPA, a COA is necessary in order to appeal "[t]he final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or ... the final order in a proceeding under section 2255." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Section 2253 does not refer to § 2241 claims by federal prisoners.

¶3

The circuits that have addressed the issue have held that § 2253's COA requirement does not apply to § 2241 claims brought by federal prisoners. See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Commission, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n. 1 (10th Cir.1997) (no COA required for federal prisoner to appeal the denial of § 2241 petition); Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir.1997) (same); Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1997) (same). See also Ferrante v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 990 F.Supp. 367, 375 n. 2 (D.N.J.1998). In light of the plain language of the AEDPA, which omits federal § 2241 petitions from the list of those requiring COAs, we now join in the conclusion that federal § 2241 petitions are excluded from the COA requirement.

¶4

The remaining issues pertaining to this appeal are resolved through an unpublished order issued simultaneously with this opinion.

/170/f3d/1145 · .json · Public domain