Hall v. Williams, 10th Cir. (2000)
Hall v. Williams, 10th Cir. (2000)
DEC 1 2000
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TIM HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 00-2239
(D.C. No. CIV-00-717-JP)
(District of New Mexico)
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, HENRY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
-2-
under the law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner also
alleges that the terms of the contracts violate his constitutional rights by
furnishing Lea County with an incentive to create poor conditions and deny
petitioner good time credits. Further, petitioner alleges that Wackenhut has
detained petitioners class members past their release dates in an effort to
increase profits under the contract. According to petitioner, Lea County has
breached the contracts by failing to ensure proper classification of inmates and
failing to provide a sufficient number of properly trained and adequately
experienced staff.
Petitioner also raises various additional state law claims. He claims
respondents violated state law by failing to ensure LCCF met or exceeded
corrections department standards. Further, petitioner claims that the contracts
violate state law because Lea County is not in the business of providing
correctional jail services as contemplated by state law. Finally, petitioner claims
respondents conduct constitutes fraud, deceptive trade practices, and a pattern of
racketeering, all in violation of state law.
A magistrate judge sua sponte issued an order to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. In his
response, petitioner claimed that exhaustion was not required because he has
raised claims implicating important state interests. Petitioner further claimed that
-3-
the state waived the exhaustion requirement. Finally, petitioner claimed that he
would be prejudiced by exhaustion due to undue delay and futility in the state
court proceedings. After considering his objections, the district court dismissed
the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The district court
subsequently denied his application for COA, noting petitioner failed to make the
required showing under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). 2
We conclude petitioner has not made the required showing for COA such
that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04
(2000). To begin with, petitioners state law claims are not cognizable in a
federal habeas action. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d
862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, to the extent petitioner challenges his
transfer to a private facility or his placement in the facility pursuant to contract,
-4-
such a claim is not cognizable under 2241. See Montez, 208 F.3d at 866;
accord Rael v. Williams, __ F.3d __, 2000 WL 1051845 (10th Cir. July 31, 2000)
(holding the fact that an inmate is transferred to, or must reside in, a private
prison does not raise a federal constitutional claim). 3 Finally, to the extent
petitioner raises cognizable federal constitutional claims, the district court
properly dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Before a
federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust
his remedies in state court. In other words, the state prisoner must give the state
courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a
federal court in a habeas petition. OSullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999); accord Brown v. Shanks, 185 F.3d 1122, 1124 (10th Cir. 1999).
The
-5-