Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Creley v. Lemaster, 139 F.3d 911, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Fred Creley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Creley alleged that being criminally convicted for escape from custody and subjected to prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that double jeopardy protections do not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings, and that administrative punishment by prison officials does not render a subsequent criminal proceeding a double jeopardy violation.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Creley v. Lemaster, 139 F.3d 911, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Fred Creley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Creley alleged that being criminally convicted for escape from custody and subjected to prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that double jeopardy protections do not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings, and that administrative punishment by prison officials does not render a subsequent criminal proceeding a double jeopardy violation.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 139 F.3d 911 Docket: 97-2310

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Fred Creley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Creley alleged that being criminally convicted for escape from custody and subjected to prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that double jeopardy protections do not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings, and that administrative punishment by prison officials does not render a subsequent criminal proceeding a double jeopardy violation.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    Creley v. Lemaster, 139 F.3d 911, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Fred Creley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Creley alleged that being criminally convicted for escape from custody and subjected to prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that double jeopardy protections do not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings, and that administrative punishment by prison officials does not render a subsequent criminal proceeding a double jeopardy violation.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    FEB 24 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    FRED CRELEY,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 97-2310

    TIM LEMASTER, Warden, New Mexico


    State Penitentiary, and ATTORNEY
    GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

    (D.C. No. CIV-97-1063-LH)


    (D. N.M.)

    Respondents-Appellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**
    Petitioner Fred Creley, appearing pro se, appeals the district courts dismissal of
    his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court,

    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.
    *

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.
    R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral
    argument.
    **

    pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 2254, concluded that
    the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the petition with prejudice.1
    Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. 2253.2 We review a Rule 4 dismissal de novo.
    Hamburg v. Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, 1994 WL 413258 (10th Cir.
    1994) (unpublished) . Applying this standard, we affirm.
    Petitioner, who was apprehended after escaping from a New Mexico state prison,
    was convicted of escape from custody. Petitioner was also subjected to prison
    disciplinary proceedings because of the escape, resulting in the loss of his accrued good
    time credits. On August 12, 1997, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas
    corpus in the district court alleging that multiple punishments had been imposed for the
    same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
    district court determined that Petitioners criminal conviction coupled with the prison
    disciplinary action did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and dismissed the
    complaint.
    We have reviewed the parties briefs, pleadings and the entire record before us
    and agree with the decision of the district court. Double jeopardy protections do not
    apply to prison disciplinary proceedings. Lucero v. Gunter, 17 F.3d 1347, 1351 (10th Cir.
    Rule 4 provides that a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition shall be dismissed if it plainly
    appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is
    not entitled to relief in the district court.... Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases
    Under 2254.
    1

    We grant Petitioners request for issuance of a certificate of appealability.


    2

    1994). Furthermore, administrative punishment imposed by prison officials does not


    render a subsequent criminal proceeding violative of double jeopardy. United States v.
    Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
    court is
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court,

    Bobby R. Baldock
    Circuit Judge

    You might also like