Church v. Oklahoma Correctional Industries , 459 F. App'x 806 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                          FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    March 29, 2012
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    WILLIAM L.A. CHURCH,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                         No. 11-6272
    (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-01111-R)
    OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONAL                      (W.D. Okla.)
    INDUSTRIES; CELLFOR, INC.;
    STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.
    OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
    CORRECTIONS; JUSTIN JONES,
    Director, DOC; JOHNNY BLEVINS,
    Administrator, DOC; DAVID
    PARKER, Warden; CHARLENE
    BREDEL, Trust Fund Supervisor;
    GERALD DAVID, Plant Manager;
    ALEX LUNN, Industry Manager,
    Supervisor; BOB THOMLINSON,
    Superintendent; RICK VERHINES,
    Vice President, CellFor, Inc.;
    JAMMIE PATTERSON, Factory
    Superintendent; JENNIFER LOYD,
    CellFor, Inc.; OKLAHOMA PARDON
    AND PAROLE BOARD; SUSAN B.
    LOVING, Chairman, Oklahoma
    Pardon and Parole Board; JANE F.
    WHEELER, Assistant Attorney
    General; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
    OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA
    PAROLE BOARD;
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
    William Church was convicted in Virginia of rape and forcible sodomy and
    for those crimes sentenced to prison. Thanks to an interstate compact,
    Mr. Church finds himself serving his Virginia sentence in an Oklahoma state
    prison. In this pro se 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action, originally filed in Oklahoma
    federal court, Mr. Church seeks relief on an array of claims against various
    officials in Oklahoma and Virginia alike. The magistrate judge assigned to the
    case ultimately prepared three separate reports and recommendations assessing all
    of Mr. Church’s claims. And after careful review, we are convinced the district
    judge was right to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss or
    grant summary judgment on all of Mr. Church’s claims. By way of example,
    Mr. Church argues his innocence, claiming that he is not the self-same “William
    Church” who was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy in Virginia. But
    *
    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. This order and judgment is
    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
    and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
    consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    -2-
    Mr. Church fails to allege facts suggesting he might have a plausible claim on this
    score. And even if he had, to the extent he seeks release or calls into question his
    conviction and sentence, Mr. Church’s lawful remedy isn’t a § 1983 damages
    action but a habeas petition. See Church v. United States, 
    2008 WL 5704482
    (E.D. Va. 2008) (explaining the same in an earlier case filed by Mr. Church).
    Affirmed.
    Entered for the Court
    Neil M. Gorsuch
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6272

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 806

Judges: Gorsuch, Lucero, McKAY

Filed Date: 3/29/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023