Thomas Waters v. BAYSORE, ADX Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
THOMAS WATERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BAYSORE, ADX Warden; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 26-1092
(D.C. No. 1:25-CV-03476-LTB-RTG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Thomas Bradford Waters appeals from an order of the district court
(1) dismissing without prejudice Waters’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack
of statutory jurisdiction; and (2) denying Waters’s motion to amend because Waters’s
* 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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 12, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
proposed new claims were not cognizable under § 2241. This court exercises
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.1
Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Waters was convicted of being a felon unlawfully in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Waters, 697 F.
App’x 760, 761, 763 (4th Cir. June 21, 2017). The Fourth Circuit affirmed Waters’s
conviction on appeal. See id. at 768. Waters sought collateral relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting his conviction was invalid under the Supreme Court’s
decision in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019). See United States v. Waters,
64 F.4th 199, 201-03 (4th Cir. 2023). His request for collateral relief was ultimately
denied because “the record [did] not support the notion that, had the jury been
instructed as to the knowledge-of-status element of the § 922(g) offense, Waters
could conceivably demonstrate that he lacked the requisite knowledge of his felon
status at the time he committed the charged offense.” United States v. Waters, No.
24-6688, 2025 WL 1984018, at *1 (4th Cir. July 17, 2025).
Waters thereafter filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to challenge his § 922(g)(1) conviction.
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant to
1 Waters’s request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is denied as moot.
A COA is not required when a federal prisoner like Waters appeals the denial of a
§ 2241 habeas petition. McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1
(10th Cir. 1997).
Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In a thorough Report and Recommendation, the magistrate
judge concluded Waters could only challenge his conviction in the District of South
Carolina in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because Waters failed to demonstrate the
remedy afforded by § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. The magistrate judge
reasoned that such a result was compelled by this court’s decision in Prost v.
Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584 (10th Cir. 2011). The magistrate further noted Waters
had a pending motion to amend his § 2241 petition to add a new claim challenging
prison officials’ decision to transfer him to a different prison unit, the ADX control
unit. Relying on this court’s decision in Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031,
1035, 1038-39 (10th Cir. 2012), the magistrate judge concluded that Waters’s place-
of-confinement claim must be brought in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On
de novo review, the district court rejected Waters’s objections, adopted the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, dismissed Waters’s § 2241 petition
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and denied Waters’s motion to amend.
This court reviews the district court’s order of dismissal de novo. See Palma-
Salazar, 677 F.3d at 1035; Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir.
2011). In undertaking that de novo review, this court has thoroughly reviewed the
record on appeal, Waters’s appellate brief, the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the district court’s order of dismissal. That review
demonstrates the district court’s disposition of both Waters’s § 2241 petition and
motion to amend is clearly correct. Thus, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those
reasons set out in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated January
Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
27, 2026, and the district court’s order dated March 6, 2026. Waters’s request to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --