Ayala v. Zavaras ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STEVEN AYALA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. Nos. 99-1083, 99-1086
(D.C. Nos. 98–Z-2614 and 98-Z-2461)
A. ZAVARAS and ATTORNEY (Dist. Colorado)
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK and HENRY, 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 cause 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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, or 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.
Mr. Steven Ayala was convicted of domestic violence in two Colorado state
cases, one in Adams County, the other in Arapahoe County. In federal district
court, he challenged both convictions and his sentence. The district court denied
both challenges for failure to exhaust under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Ayala appeals,
files a petition for mandamus and applies for a certificate of appealability. We
dismiss this appeal, deny his petition, and deny his certificate.
In state court, Mr. Ayala brought suit against the Adams County officials
and attorneys in their official and individual capacities for false arrest, false
search warrant, coercion to plea, and conspiracy (case 99-1086). Regarding the
Arapahoe conviction, Mr. Ayala filed suit against Ms. Catherine Roberts, defense
counsel, for ineffective assistance of counsel (case 99-1083). He also complained
of a breach of the plea agreement and inappropriate judicial activism. In
federal district court, Mr. Ayala filed suit against Mr. Zavaras, executive director
of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and the state attorney general. But
Mr. Ayala lobbed the same state claims against the same state parties. The
district court framed the complaints as petitions for habeas corpus under § 2254
and denied them for lack of exhaustion at the state level. On appeal, Mr. Ayala
argues that he has exhausted state remedies. He also submits a “petition in the
nature of mandamus” requesting this court to order the district court to hear and
decide his underlying Arapahoe complaint as a civil rights complaint under §
-2-
1983 and his Adams County complaint as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, both
not statutorily subject to the § 2254 requirements.
We first address his petition for mandamus. Mandamus “is a drastic
[remedy], to be invoked only in extraordinary situations, and will issue only in
those exceptional cases where the inferior court has acted wholly without
jurisdiction or so clearly abused its discretion as to constitute a judicial
usurpation of power.” See Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Frates, 911 F.2d 380, 387-88
(10th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
In general terms, habeas corpus attacks facts or duration of a prisoner’s
confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or shorter confinement,
whereas civil rights actions under § 1983 attack conditions of a prisoner’s
confinement and request remedies other than release or shortened confinement.
See id. at 812 (quoting Rhodes v. Hannigan, 12 F.3d 989, 991 (10th Cir.1993)).
Section 2241 proceedings are used to attack the execution of a sentence, in
contrast to § 2254 habeas proceedings, which are used to collaterally attack the
validity of a conviction and sentence. See McIntosh v. United States Parole
Commission, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, after reviewing the record, it is clear that Mr. Ayala is a
state prisoner challenging his conviction and sentence. His allegations of false
arrest, ineffective assistance of counsel, conspiracy, and other misconduct are all
-3-
directed at attacking the state judgment of his conviction and releasing him from
his sentence. Despite Mr. Ayala’s attempts to disguise the complaint to
circumvent exhaustion requirements, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in framing the complaints as § 2254 habeas petitions. We DENY a writ of
mandamus.
Moreover, we agree with the district court that Mr. Ayala did not exhaust
his state remedies by directly challenging his conviction or making postconviction
attacks in state court as required for a § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See Dever
v. Kansas State Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994). Rather, in
state court, he made a series of unsuccessful civil rights complaints. Accordingly,
having failed to fulfill the § 2254 pre-requisite of exhaustion, Mr. Ayala has
failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as
required for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
We DENY a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal. We DENY
his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-4-