Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mark Andrew Christensen v. Aristedes W. Zavaras, 166 F.3d 346, 10th Cir. (1998)
Mark Andrew Christensen v. Aristedes W. Zavaras, 166 F.3d 346, 10th Cir. (1998)
3d 346
98 CJ C.A.R. 5887
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Background
5
Petitioner argues that Montana has never taken any action to dispose of the
Montana detainer and has shown no interest in extraditing him. He asserts he is
unable to participate in any rehabilitative programs in Colorado as a result of
the Montana detainer. He seeks the removal of the detainer in his 2241
petition, asserting that respondent's failure to have the detainer against him
removed violates his due process rights.
The district court denied the 2241 petition in May 1997, adopting the
magistrate judge's recommendation that petitioner had failed to exhaust his
available state remedies because he never presented his claim to the Colorado
or Montana appellate courts. On appeal, petitioner contends he had exhausted
his state remedies because he filed petitions in Colorado and Montana seeking
the removal of detainer, which were denied.
Petitioner filed his habeas petition in Montana only after the district court's
ruling; thus, this information was not before the district court. The record
before the district court showed that petitioner twice petitioned the Colorado
state district court in Larimer County seeking removal of the detainer action and
had filed a state habeas petition with the Colorado Supreme Court. The
Colorado Supreme Court denied petitioner's habeas petition without prejudice
to renew his petition if the Larimer County Court did not act upon his earlier
petitions within sixty days. Petitioner included information in his brief on
appeal that the Larimer County Court ruled on his pending petitions to remove
the detainer on August 9, 1996, and October 16, 1996. However, petitioner
does not indicate what action the Larimer County Court took or whether he
appealed those orders to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Discussion
9
and federal interests are furthered by an affirmance on the merits, despite the
lack of exhaustion, "if it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even
a colorable federal claim.").
10
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the existence of the Montana detainer
violates his federal rights. He has asserted no specific incident of prejudice
resulting from the existence of the unexecuted warrant, and his general
allegation that he is unable to participate in rehabilitative programs in the
Colorado Department of Corrections because of the detainer is conclusory and
unsupported by any evidence in the record. See McDonald v. New Mexico
Parole Bd., 955 F.2d 631, 634 (10th Cir.1991). Even if petitioner were unable
to participate in rehabilitative programs because of the detainer, we noted in
McDonald that "the Supreme Court has rejected the concept that these kinds of
adverse consequences ... trigger a due process concern." Id. (citing Moody v.
Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (holding
that a prisoner in a federal penitentiary who is subject to a federal paroleviolation detainer is not constitutionally entitled to a prompt parole-revocation
hearing)); see also Carchman, 473 U.S. at 731 n. 10 ("This Court has never
held, however, that a prisoner subject to a probation-violation detainer has a
constitutional right to a speedy probation-revocation hearing."). Therefore,
petitioner has failed to present any evidence of a due process violation.
11
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is
AFFIRMED. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED
because petitioner failed to present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the
law and merits. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3); DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937
F.2d 502, 505 (1991).
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
"A detainer is a request filed by a criminal justice agency with the institution in
which a prisoner is incarcerated, asking the institution either to hold the
prisoner for the agency or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is
imminent." Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d
516 (1985). Here, the Montana detainer requested the Colorado Department of
Corrections to detain petitioner upon his release because Montana intended to
extradite petitioner for his probation violation upon completion of his Colorado
sentence
No statutory exhaustion requirement applies to 2241, but we have held that "
'federal courts should abstain from the exercise of [ 2241] jurisdiction if the
issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the
state court or by other state procedures available to the petitioner.' " Capps v.
Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 n. 2 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir.1987))