Archuleta v. Williams ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 1 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LEONARD ARCHULETA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOE WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea County
Correctional Facility; GARY
JOHNSON, Governor, State of New
Mexico; ROBERT PERRY, Secretary No. 00-2216
of Corrections; NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-00-641-JC/DJS)
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, (District of New Mexico)
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.
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
Leonard Archuleta, appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to challenge the district court’s denial
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While
incarcerated in a private correctional facility in New Mexico, Archuleta filed the
instant petition in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
challenging his transfer to, and incarceration in, a private facility. Construing his
pro-se petition liberally, as we must under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972), Archuleta 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 Because we conclude that
Archuleta has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,” we decline to grant COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Respondent Wackenhut Corrections Corporation operates the Lea County
Correctional Facility (“LCCF”) under a contract with respondent Lea County,
New Mexico. Petitioner alleges that the contracts between the New Mexico
Corrections Department and Lea County and between Lea County and Wackenhut
violate state law and his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection
1
Because the § 2241 petition in this case is nearly identical to those filed
in Davis v. Williams , No. 00-2250 (10th Cir., filed August 4, 2000), and Hall v.
Williams , No. 00-2239 (10th Cir., filed August 28, 2000), our orders and
judgments in those cases are virtually identical to that in the instant case.
-2-
under the law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner also
alleges that the terms of the contracts violate his constitutional rights by
furnishing Lea County with an incentive to create poor conditions and deny
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.
Petitioner also raises various additional state law claims. He claims
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 he has
raised claims implicating important state interests. Petitioner further claimed that
-3-
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 his objections, the district court dismissed
the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The district court
subsequently denied his application for COA, noting petitioner failed to make the
required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
We conclude petitioner has not made the required showing for COA such
that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04
(2000). To begin with, petitioner’s state law claims are not cognizable in a
federal habeas action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d
862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, to the extent petitioner challenges his
transfer 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 866;
accord Rael v. Williams, __ F.3d __, 2000 WL 1051845 (10th Cir. July 31, 2000)
(holding the fact that an 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
2
We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in
Rael , which we decided after the district court dismissed the petition.
-4-
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).
The application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. This matter
is DISMISSED. 3
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
3
See Hogan v. Zavaras , 93 F.3d 711, 712 (10th Cir. 1996) (denying COA
and dismissing an appeal of the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition for
failure to exhaust).
-5-