Scott v. United States

Appellate Case: 21-6160 Document: 010110731500 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 30, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
SAMUEL NATHANIEL SCOTT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 21-6160
(D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00794-J)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
While incarcerated in Oklahoma state custody at the Joseph Harp Correctional
Center (JHCC), Samuel Scott was charged in a federal court criminal complaint with
First Degree Murder in Indian Country. See Criminal Complaint, United States v.
Scott, No. 5:21-MJ-00194-STE-1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 26, 2021), ECF No. 1. 1 He filed
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
Though not part of the record on appeal in this case, we take judicial notice
of relevant documents in No. 5:21-MJ-00194-STE. See, e.g., United States v.
Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Although we are not obliged to
do so, we may exercise our discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records
Appellate Case: 21-6160 Document: 010110731500 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 2
an application for a writ of habeas corpus in his federal criminal proceeding. See R.
at 6. On August 12, 2021, the district court in the criminal proceeding entered an
order striking the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering the clerk of court to
file the petition as a new civil case. See id.An identical habeas complaint was duly filed as an independent civil action in
the Western District of Oklahoma. See id. at 1, 3-4. The habeas application did not
challenge the state conviction for which Scott had been imprisoned at JHCC.
Instead, Scott complained that at JHCC he did not have adequate access to law
library resources, including federal case law, or adequate assistance with filing court
documents. As a remedy for this problem, he asked the court to “instruct the [United
States Department of Justice] to assume custody of me and transfer me to the
appropriate federal detention facility.” Id. at 3 (capitalization normalized). 2
On August 13, 2021, the district court entered an order in the civil case, No.
5:21-CV-00794-J, directing the court clerk to dismiss the case. See id. at 8. The
order stated that “[t]he Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be determined in [the
pending federal criminal case, No. 5:21-MJ-00194-STE-1].” Id. But, as noted, the
identical habeas application already filed in Scott’s federal criminal case had been
stricken.
in our court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the
disposition of the case at hand.”).
2
Although the habeas application did not specify under which habeas statute it
was brought, it appears Scott intended to file an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2
Appellate Case: 21-6160 Document: 010110731500 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 3
Faced with a sort of judicial ping pong regarding his application, Scott
appealed to this court the August 13, 2021, order dismissing his habeas application in
No. 5:21-CV-00794-J. He followed this up with an amended notice of appeal, also
filed in No. 5:21-CV-00794-J.
Meanwhile, on August 30, 2021, the United States Attorney filed a motion to
dismiss the pending federal criminal complaint against Scott. Motion to Dismiss,
United States v. Scott, No. 5:21-MJ-00194-STE-1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 30, 2021), ECF
No. 9. The district court entered its order dismissing the complaint without prejudice
on the same day. See id., ECF No. 10. There is no indication that the government
has refiled the federal charges against Scott.
Only the district court’s order of dismissal in No. 5:21-CV-00794-J is now
before us. We affirm the district court’s dismissal, albeit for a different reason than
the one it stated. The only relief requested in Scott’s habeas application was that he
be transferred to federal custody because the conditions at JHCC did not afford him
adequate law library access or access to legal assistance. See R. at 4. This
represented a challenge to the conditions of his confinement at JHCC rather than the
fact or duration of that confinement and should therefore have been brought through
a civil rights action rather than a habeas application. Cf. Palma-Salazar v. Davis,
677 F.3d 1031, 1038-39 (10th Cir. 2012) (prisoner’s Fifth and Eighth Amendment
challenges to denial of his request for a transfer within Bureau of Prisons should have
been brought as a Bivens civil rights action challenging his conditions of
3
Appellate Case: 21-6160 Document: 010110731500 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 4
confinement; the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction under § 2241 to consider
them as a purported habeas claim).
In his opening brief, Scott raises several other issues. He asserts that the
district court should have appointed counsel for him, that he was entitled to receive a
report and recommendation before dismissal because this case was initially referred
to a magistrate judge, and that as a Native American he is entitled to the benefit of
treaty rights and protections and/or the state court lacked jurisdiction to convict him.
Given the limited scope of the claim raised in his habeas petition and its patent
jurisdictional defect, none of these assertions could affect the outcome of this appeal.
We therefore need not discuss them further. See United States v. Valtierra-Rojas,
468 F.3d 1235, 1243 n.12 (10th Cir. 2006) (“We will not undertake to decide issues
that do not affect the outcome of a dispute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We affirm the judgment of dismissal. For substantially the reasons stated by
the district court in its order denying Scott’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal
Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees, see R. at 14-15, we deny Scott’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal and order immediate payment of the filing
fee.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Judge
4