Jackson v. Secretary of Corr. ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 6 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
A.C. JACKSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-3042
(D.C. No. 96-CV-3303)
SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; (D. Kan.)
THE STATE OF KANSAS;
L.E. BRUCE, Warden, Ellsworth
Correctional Facility; KANSAS
PAROLE BOARD; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF KANSAS,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner A. C. Jackson, a Kansas state inmate confined in Ellsworth
Correctional Facility, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. In order to show entitlement to a certificate of appealability, an
appellant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is met by a showing that the issues
raised “are debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues
differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings.” United States v.
Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th Cir. 1997).
In 1972, petitioner began serving a life sentence imposed by the Kansas
state court. He was paroled by the Kansas Parole Board to Missouri, but
subsequently convicted of Missouri state burglary and theft charges. After
serving his Missouri sentence, he was returned to Kansas as a parole violator.
Based on the Missouri convictions, the Kansas Parole Board revoked his parole
on December 7, 1995, indicating that he would be again considered for parole in
August 1996. The Parole Board, however, has continued to deny parole.
In the district court, petitioner asserted that he is entitled to habeas relief
for errors related to his arrest and detention on the parole violation warrant, his
-2-
resulting extradition from Missouri to Kansas, and his parole revocation
proceedings. The district court analyzed each of petitioner’s claims, including:
(1) unlawful detention in Missouri; (2) denial of due process during a probable
cause hearing; (3) denial of due process upon his extradition to Kansas;
(4) violation of his liberty interests by the revocation of parole and the continued
denial of parole; and (5) unconstitutionality of the Uniform Act for Out-of-State
Parolee Supervision, see Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4101. The district court
determined that petitioner had failed to exhaust his state court remedies, see 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and that, even if the claims were properly presented for
federal review, they lacked merit. It denied the petition for habeas relief and,
subsequently, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.
After a review of the record, we agree with the district court for the
reasons stated in its order of January 29, 1998. Because we conclude that
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, we DENY his request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-