ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Petitioner-Appellant Jesse L. Barela appeals from the district courts 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 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 courts 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. Appx 246, 247 (10th Cir. 2004)); see Ray v. Denham, 626 F. Appx 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 judges 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, 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. Barelas motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge