ROMINGER LEGAL
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 10th Circuit
Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This court case was taken from the Tenth Circuit Court or Appeals's. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

,

Petitioner,

v.

,

Respondents.

No.

(D.C. No. )

()

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, EBEL, and BRISCOE, 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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

David J. Crosby, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief and seeks a certificate of appealability. Mr. Crosby was convicted in Colorado and began serving his sentence there. He was later transferred to two prisons in Texas before his transfer back to a state correctional facility in Colorado. He filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2241, 2243, and 2254, claiming that his transfer to Texas violated his constitutional right to due process and that the State of Colorado lost jurisdiction over him as a result of the transfer. The district court denied his claims and his request for a certificate of appealability. In order to obtain a certificate of appealability from this court, Mr. Crosby must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The gist of Mr. Crosby's argument is his assertion that the transfers were in violation of state law and that as a result he was denied his constitutional right to due process. This court recently considered and rejected the claim that a transfer such as the one challenged here violates a prisoner's constitutional rights. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000). We pointed out there that the transfer of an inmate from one state to another violates neither Colorado nor federal law. Id. at 865-66. We further noted that an inmate has no constitutionally protected right to serve his sentence at any particular prison. Id. Because Mr. Crosby thus has no constitutional interest entitled to due process protection, his due process claim is without merit.

Mr. Crosby also contends the state of Colorado lost jurisdiction over him by the transfers. To the extent this claim is based on the Constitution, it is without merit. See Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir. 1991) ("Criminal jurisdiction over a state's inhabitants remains with the respective states and territories under whose jurisdiction the prisoners were originally sentenced.").

Finally, Mr. Crosby contends the district court erred in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Because the issues raised are purely legal ones that can be resolved on the basis of Mr. Crosby's petition, the district court was not required to have an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

We DENY Mr. Crosby's request for a certificate of appealabilty and DISMISS this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge

FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or 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.

On appeal, Mr. Crosby appears to recognize that a procedural due process claim requires a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest and characterizes his claim as one based on substantive due process in an attempt to overcome this deficiency. The allegations in support of his claim, however, reveal that it is the allegedly improper transfer procedures for which he seeks a remedy. Moreover, any due process claim, either substantive or procedural, is by the very language of the Fourteenth Amendment and the authority cited by Mr. Crosby dependent upon the existence of an underlying constitutionally recognized interest that is simply not present under the circumstances here.

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.