Filed: Jul. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk TERRY PATRICK BARR, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-1003 v. (D.C. No. 98-D-2071) RICHARD SOARES, Superintendant, (D. Colo.) Limon Correctional Facility; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and ASSISTANT COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL, or attorney for respondents; additional respondent for the above respondents, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, M
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk TERRY PATRICK BARR, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-1003 v. (D.C. No. 98-D-2071) RICHARD SOARES, Superintendant, (D. Colo.) Limon Correctional Facility; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and ASSISTANT COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL, or attorney for respondents; additional respondent for the above respondents, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, Mc..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 6 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TERRY PATRICK BARR,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-1003
v. (D.C. No. 98-D-2071)
RICHARD SOARES, Superintendant, (D. Colo.)
Limon Correctional Facility;
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; and ASSISTANT
COLORADO ATTORNEY
GENERAL, or attorney for
respondents; additional respondent for
the above respondents,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections. For a period of time he was transferred under contract to three
different facilities in Texas and then returned to Colorado. He filed this pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that he
is illegally confined in Colorado. He asserts that he is entitled to be released
from custody because Colorado lost jurisdiction over him by illegally transferring
him to Texas prisons. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state
remedies, the district court dismissed the petition on the merits and subsequently
denied Petitioner’s motion for rehearing and motion seeking relief from judgment.
The court also denied Petitioner’s application to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis and his application for a certificate of appealability, both of which
Petitioner has now renewed in this court.
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Having
reviewed the briefs and the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to make
the requisite showing. Neither the United States Constitution nor any federal law
prohibits the transfer of an inmate from one state to another. See Olim v.
Wakinekona,
461 U.S. 238, 245-48 (1983). Nor has Colorado created any liberty
interest in remaining in a facility within Colorado. To the contrary, Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 17-1-105(1)(f) specifically provides that the Department of Corrections
-2-
has “[t]he authority to enter into contracts and agreements with other
jurisdictions, including other states, the federal government, and political
subdivisions of this state, for the confinement and maintenance of offenders
sentenced to imprisonment by the courts of this state.” Nothing in the Western
Interstate Corrections Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-60-801 through 24-60-805,
is to the contrary.
For these reasons, as more fully set out in the district court’s Order of
Dismissal filed October 23, 1998, we deny Petitioner’s application for a
certificate of appealability and we dismiss the appeal. 1
DENIED and DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
1
We grant the application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
-3-