Clark v. Payne

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 9, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JESSE DOYLE (J.D.) CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 09-4004
v. (D.C. No. 08-CV-00377-TC)
(D. Utah)
A. LYNN PAYNE,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant, Jesse Doyle Clark, seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) so that he may appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for
habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Clark v. Payne, No. 2:08-
CV-377 TC, 2008 WL 4935443, at *1 (D. Utah Nov. 18, 2008). Mr. Clark filed
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief on May 12, 2008, while criminal
charges were pending against him in Utah state court. Doc. 1. Reaching the
substantive grounds of Mr. Clark’s petition, the district court denied relief on
November 18, 2008. Clark, 2008 WL 4935443, at *1. Eight days prior to the
denial of relief, on November 10, 2008, Mr. Clark pled to a reduced charge, and
on March 2, 2009, he was sentenced. Aplt. Br. 15. His sentence was suspended,
and he was ultimately placed on six years’ probation and ordered to serve 125
days in a county facility. Aplt. Br. 15. We deny the motion for a COA because
the proceeding is moot, dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s order, and
remand with directions to dismiss the underlying proceeding without prejudice.
See McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996)
(noting that a court may raise the issue of mootness sua sponte); see also Davis v.
Roberts, 425 F.3d 830, 834 (10th Cir. 2005).
In his petition, Mr. Clark challenges the Utah court’s jurisdiction over him,
claiming that he is a member of a federally protected Indian tribe—the Uintah
Band Indian Tribe—and that the alleged criminal violations took place in Indian
territory. He filed his petition in the district court while awaiting his state-court
trial; however, § 2241 petitions that challenge a defendant’s pretrial custody
become moot upon the conviction of the petitioner. See Miller v. Glanz, No. 09-
5005, 2009 WL 1741386, at *1 (10th Cir. June 22, 2009) (unpublished). His
petition is now before us on an application for COA to review the district court’s
disposition of Mr. Clark’s jurisdictional claim on the merits. Because Mr. Clark
entered a plea of guilty and was subsequently sentenced, his request for dismissal
of his pending prosecution under § 2241 has been mooted. See Williams v.
Slater, No. 08-4047, 2008 WL 2470914, at *1 (10th Cir. June 20, 2008)
(unpublished) (following Thorne v. Warden, 479 F.3d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 1973),
and Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1998)).
-2-
While “[a]bsence of jurisdiction in the convicting court is a proper basis for
federal habeas relief cognizable under the due process clause,” Reber v. Steele,
No. 08-4057, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. July 1, 2009), Mr. Clark has been sentenced,
and thus the proper avenue of relief is a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
assuming he meets the “in custody” requirement of that statute. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1) (indicating that a petitioner must be “in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court”). We decline to recast Mr. Clark’s petition as a § 2254
petition because it could result in prejudice for any other grounds he may wish to
raise or any subsequent habeas petitions he may wish to pursue, thus subjecting
him to the constraints of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) on second or successive habeas
petitions. Rather, we simply hold that, his underlying § 2241 petition having
become moot, relief on appeal is now precluded and dismissal of the appeal on
this basis is appropriate. See Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir.
2001). Additionally, in order to preserve the rights of the parties, it is our duty to
vacate the district court’s judgment with directions to dismiss. See United States
v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 (1950); Miller, 2009 WL 1741386, at
*2.
-3-
Therefore, we DENY the motion for a COA as moot, DISMISS the appeal,
VACATE the district court’s order, and REMAND with directions to dismiss the
underlying proceeding without prejudice.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-