Filed: Jan. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 9 2001 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JEFFREY J. RITTENHOUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-6142 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1917-A) RICK HUDSON, Warden, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BALDOCK , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the dete
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 9 2001 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JEFFREY J. RITTENHOUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-6142 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1917-A) RICK HUDSON, Warden, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BALDOCK , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the deter..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 9 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JEFFREY J. RITTENHOUSE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-6142
(D.C. No. 99-CV-1917-A)
RICK HUDSON, Warden, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Jeffrey J. Rittenhouse appeals from the district court ’s order dismissing his
federal habeas complaint, filed pro se and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Our
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Petitioner alleged
claims pursuant to due process, the Eighth and Thirteenth amendments, and equal
protection--all resulting from his transfer out of a Wisconsin state prison to a
private prison facility in Oklahoma. The magistrate judge recommended that all
of petitioner’s claims be dismissed, see R. Vol. I, doc. 12, and, after considering
the petitioner’s objections, the district court agreed, see
id., doc. 15.
On appeal, petitioner reiterates those issues and arguments presented in his
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He also presents
a jurisdictional issue and various other arguments and theories which were not
presented to the district court . In accord with the general rule, we do not consider
issues, theories, and arguments not presented below absent special circumstances
not present here. See Okland Oil Co. v. Conoco, Inc. ,
144 F.3d 1308, 1314 n.4
(10th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co. ,
128 F.3d 1380, 1385-86 (10th
Cir. 1997).
Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act applies to this
appeal, petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) before
proceeding on appeal. See Montez v. McKinna ,
208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir.
2000). The district court denied petitioner COA, see R. Vol. I, doc. 15, at 3; this
court construes petitioner’s notice of appeal as a renewed application for COA,
see Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). In determining whether COA should issue, we must
-2-
decide whether petitioner has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees;
that request is granted. However, after careful review of the entire record on
appeal in light of the applicable law and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
petitioner has not met the standards for issuance of COA, for the reasons set forth
in the district court ’s order dated April 5, 2000. This appeal is dismissed; the
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-3-