Simpson v. Cockrell

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10415
Conference Calendar
HENRY RAY SIMPSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CV-1755-A
--------------------
August 21, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Ray Simpson, Texas prisoner #899703, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal
of what the district court construed as his habeas corpus
application for failure to comply with a court order. Simpson
was serving concurrent federal and state sentences, and he sought
to challenge his transfer from the federal prison system to the
Texas prison system. He specifically stated that he is not
seeking habeas corpus relief. Because Simpson did not attempt to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-10415
-2-
challenge the validity of his underlying convictions or
sentences, his action was not a habeas action, and no COA is
necessary for an appeal. See Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d
933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976). Simpson’s COA motion therefore is
DENIED as unnecessary.
The district court erred by dismissing Simpson’s action for
failure to comply with the deficiency order, see McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Simpson responded
timely to the order by correctly noting that his was not a habeas
action. The district court’s error is harmless, however.
Simpson has no constitutional right to incarceration in any
particular prison system. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245,
247-48 (1983). Where Simpson served his concurrent sentences was
a matter for the two sovereigns involved to decide. See United
States v. McCrary, 220 F.3d 868, 870-71 (8th Cir. 2000). Simpson
does not identify any federal statute that gives him the right to
maintain a civil action and obtain the relief sought. The
judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction.
COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.