Barela v. Jackson, et al., No. 21-2040 (10th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ JESSE L. BARELA, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 23, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, No. 21-2040 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00240-WJ-CG) (D. N.M.) v. A.W. JACKSON, Warden, in his individual capacity; SONYA K. CHAVEZ, USMS; DONALD W. WASHINGTON, Director, USMS, Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________ 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district court set a bond hearing or release him from custody based on seven grounds of * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 Page: 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, “§ 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 COVID19 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, 2 Appellate Case: 21-2040 Document: 010110552581 Date Filed: 07/23/2021 Page: 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.