Lucero v. Williams ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 4 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RAYMOND LUCERO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOE WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea County
Correctional Facility; GARY
JOHNSON, Governor, State of New
Mexico; ROBERT PERRY, Secretary No. 00-2224
of Corrections; NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-00-664 LH/KBM)
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, (Dist. N.M.)
State of New Mexico; WACKENHUT
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation; LEA COUNTY,
NEW MEXICO; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE, 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. 1
The facts and issues in this case are identical to those in Rael v. Williams,
F.3d , 2000 WL 1051845 (10th Cir. July 31, 2000). Petitioner is an
inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
for habeas corpus relief, he challenged his transfer from a New Mexico state-run
prison facility to a private prison facility, and he also challenged the conditions of
his confinement. He raised both federal constitutional claims and state claims.
He sought an order vacating his conviction and sentence and release from
incarceration. Construing the petition as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to
exhaust state remedies and subsequently declined to issue a certificate of
appealability.
The district court correctly construed this pro se petition as having been
filed pursuant to § 2241 rather than § 2254. See McIntosh v. United States Parole
Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). A state prisoner may appeal denial
of a § 2241 petition only upon issuance of a certificate of appealability.
1
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir.
2000). A certificate of appealability shall issue upon a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. Id. at 869; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Here
there is no such showing, and accordingly we deny the application for a certificate
of appealability.
Petitioner’s claims of improper transfer do not raise a federal constitutional
claim. See Montez at 865-66 & n. 4. His claims of improper conditions of
confinement do not state a claim under § 2241. 2 And, his claims of violation of
state law similarly are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); Montez at 865.
We DENY petitioner’s application for certificate of appealability and
DISMISS this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
2
Claims challenging the conditions of confinement are more properly
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is not a claim petitioner has asserted in
this action.
-3-