Seifert v. Williams ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 4 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICKY D. SEIFERT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-2146
JOE WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea County (D.C. No. CIV-00-193-MV/LFG)
Correctional Facility; GARY (D.N.M.)
JOHNSON, Governor, State of New
Mexico; ROBERT PERRY, Secretary
of Corrections; NEW MEXICO
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT,
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 BALDOCK, HENRY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, the panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(c); 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Ricky D. Seifert, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to
appeal the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Incarcerated in a
private correctional facility in New Mexico, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, Petitioner challenged
his transfer to, and incarceration in, a private facility. As best as we can discern
from his rambling petition, Petitioner claims his incarceration in a private facility
violates various state laws as well as his rights under the First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 1
Respondent Wackenhut Corrections Corporation operates the Lea County
Correctional Facility (LCCF) under a contract with Respondent Lea County, New
Mexico. Petitioner alleges that the contract between the New Mexico Corrections
Department and Lea County, as well as the contract between Lea County and
Wackenhut, violates state law and his constitutional rights to due process, equal
protection, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner also
alleges that the terms of the contracts violate his constitutional rights by
providing Lea County with an incentive to provide poor conditions and deny
1
Because the § 2241 petition in this case is nearly identical to those filed
in Wolf v. Williams , No. 00-2127 (10th Cir., filed April 17, 2000), Ayon v.
Williams , No. 00-2161 (10th Cir., filed May 16, 2000), Martinez v. Williams , No.
00-2169 (10th Cir., filed May 22, 2000), Keck v. Williams , No. 00-2192 (10th
Cir., filed June 16, 2000), our order and judgments in those cases are virtually
identical to this one.
-2-
Petitioner good time credits. Further, Petitioner alleges that Wackenhut has
detained Petitioner’s “class members” past their release dates in an effort to
increase profits under the contract. According to Petitioner, Lea County has
breached the contracts by failing to ensure proper classification of inmates and
failing to provide a sufficient number of properly trained and adequately
experienced staff.
In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner raises various additional state law claims.
He claims that Respondents violated state law by failing to ensure LCCF met or
exceeded corrections department standards. Further, Petitioner claims that the
contracts violate state law because Lea County is not in the business of providing
correctional jail services as contemplated by state law. Finally, Petitioner claims
Respondents’ conduct constitutes fraud, deceptive trade practices, and a pattern of
racketeering, all in violation of state law.
A magistrate judge sua sponte issued an order to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. In his
response, Petitioner claimed that exhaustion was not required because “Petitioner
has raised claims implicating important state interests.” Petitioner further
claimed that the state waived the exhaustion requirement. Finally, Petitioner
claimed that he would be prejudiced by exhaustion due to undue delay and futility
in the state court proceedings. After considering Petitioner’s objections, the
-3-
district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The
district court subsequently denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of
appealability, noting that Petitioner failed to make the required showing under 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). We deny Petitioner’s application for a certificate of
appealability as well, and dismiss his appeal.
A state prisoner may appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition only if “a circuit
justice or judge” issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A);
Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that a state
prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of a § 2241
petition). To obtain a certificate of appealability under § 2253(c), a habeas
prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Id. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires a demonstration that reasonable jurists
could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner. Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000). We conclude
Petitioner has failed to make the required showing.
First, Petitioner’s state law claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Montez, 208 F.3d at 865. Further, to the
extent Petitioner challenges his transfer per se to a private facility or his
placement in the facility pursuant to contract, such a claim is not cognizable
under § 2241. See Montez, 208 F.3d at 865-66; accord Rael v. Williams, __ F.3d
-4-
__, __, 2000 WL 1050091 (10th Cir. July 31, 2000) (fact that inmate is
transferred to, or must reside in, a private prison does not raise a federal
constitutional claim). 2 Finally, to the extent Petitioner raises cognizable federal
constitutional claims, the district court properly dismissed his petition without
prejudice for failure to exhaust. “Before a federal court may grant habeas relief
to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court. In other
words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on his
claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition.”
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); accord Brown v. Shanks, 185
F.3d 1122, 1124 (10th Cir. 1999).
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 3
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
2
We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decisions in
Montez and Rael , which we decided after the district court dismissed the petition.
3
See Hogan v. Zavaras , 93 F.3d 711, 712 (10th Cir. 1996) (denying COA
and dismissing appeal of district court’s denial of § 2241 petition for failure to
exhaust).
-5-