Caravalho v. Pugh
Decision Date | 27 April 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 99-1001,99-1038 and 99-1112.,99-1001 |
Citation | 177 F.3d 1177 |
Parties | Ernest CARAVALHO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael PUGH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Ernest Caravalho, pro se.
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, 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(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In these consolidated appeals, petitioner Ernest Caravalho challenges the following three rulings of the district court: (1) the denial of Caravalho's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition; (2) the denial of Caravalho's Motion for Judge to Voluntarily Withdraw; and (3) the denial of Caravalho's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Because Caravalho has not demonstrated "a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal," this court denies Caravalho leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and dismisses his appeals.
Each of the three appeals in this case arise out of the filing of Caravalho's § 2241 petition. In that petition, Caravalho noted that he was convicted in 1991 in the District of Hawaii of cultivating in excess of 1000 marijuana plants and that his conviction was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 1993. Caravalho further noted that he had filed a previous 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition in the District of Hawaii, which in 1996 vacated part of Caravalho's conviction and reduced his sentence by sixty months.
In response to the district court's denial of his § 2241 habeas petition, Caravalho filed a Motion for Judge to Voluntarily Withdraw. In what can only be charitably described as a lengthy diatribe, Caravalho contended that Judge Daniel should recuse himself on the basis of bias and prejudice. In particular, Caravalho contended that Judge Daniel's prejudice was apparent from the fact that he had wrongfully dismissed Caravalho's § 2241 petition. Judge Daniel denied the motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hammoud v. Ma'at
... ... [ 16 ] 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) ... [ 17 ] Pack , 218 F.3d at 452 ... (quoting Caravalho v. Pugh , 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 ... (10th Cir. 1999)) ... [ 18 ] See Saving Clause , ... GARNER'S DICTIONARY OF LEGAL USAGE 797 ... ...
-
Sumpter v. Kansas
...present a "reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on [cross-appeal]," Caravalho v. Pugh , 177 F.3d 1177, 1177 (10th Cir. 1999), we deny his renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis .11 We also deny Mr. Sumpter's Motion for Leave to File a Sur......
-
U.S. v. Dago
...Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 298, 299-300 (9th Cir.1997); Stirone v. Markley, 345 F.2d 473, 474-75 (7th Cir.1965); see also Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir.1999) (suggesting 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition might be available to challenge federal criminal conviction where 28 U.S.C. § 2255......
-
Abernathy v. Wandes
...Section 2255, however, has been found to be “inadequate or ineffective” only in “extremely limited circumstances.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir.1999); see Brace, 634 F.3d at 1169 (stating that “§ 2255 will rarely be an inadequate or ineffective remedy to challenge a conv......