Moore v. State of Utah ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    NOV 16 2001
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    BRUCE NILES MOORE,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.                                                 No. 00-4185
    (D.C. No. 99-CV-575)
    STATE OF UTAH; DEPARTMENT                            (D. Utah)
    OF CORRECTIONS; HENRY
    GALETKA, Warden; UTAH BOARD
    OF PARDONS; MICHAEL O.
    LEAVITT, Governor; THIRD
    DISTRICT COURT; WILLIAM A.
    THORNE, Honorable Judge;
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
    OF UTAH; RICHARD C. HOWE,
    Honorable Chief Justice,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT            *
    Before TACHA , Chief Judge, SEYMOUR , Circuit Judge, and        BRORBY , Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    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.
    Petitioner Bruce Niles Moore, a prisoner of the State of Utah appearing
    pro se, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He
    claimed that he was unlawfully arrested while on parole because he never
    willingly signed the parole agreement and its restrictions did not bind him. He
    also alleged a violation of his right to Due Process, if he had signed the parole
    agreement. In addition, petitioner asserted claims under the Civil Rights Act, the
    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Freedom of
    Information Act (FOIA).
    We first address the timeliness of petitioner’s appeal. The district court
    entered its order denying relief on July 20, 2000. However, the docket sheet does
    not reflect that the clerk prepared a separate document setting forth the judgment
    in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and entered the judgment on the docket
    pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a). Thus, petitioner’s time to appeal has never
    begun to run. See Schaefer v. Shalala , 
    509 U.S. 292
    , 302-03 (1993); Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1)(A). We need not remand for entry of a judgment, however, as the
    separate document rule is mechanically applied in favor of appellate rights.
    -2-
    Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis , 
    435 U.S. 381
    , 386 (1978) (per curiam). Petitioner
    filed an application for a certificate of appealability in the district court which
    included the required notice and may serve as the functional equivalent of a
    notice of appeal.   See Smith v. Barry , 
    502 U.S. 244
    , 248-49 (1992). The
    requirement of a judgment on a separate document is therefore deemed waived,
    see Bankers Trust Co. , 
    435 U.S. at 387-88
    , and the appeal is deemed timely.
    We next address our standard of review. Petitioner brought his petition
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , but the district court construed the petition as one
    brought under § 2254. Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence,
    however, not the validity of his conviction or sentence. We therefore review the
    petition as one brought under § 2241.      See Montez v. McKinna , 
    208 F.3d 862
    ,
    864-65 (10th Cir. 2000) (discussing difference between §§ 2241 and 2254). We
    review the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo.      Sinclair v. Henman ,
    
    986 F.2d 407
    , 408 (10th Cir. 1993).
    The district court did not address petitioner’s application for a certificate of
    appealability in that court, and the application is presumed denied.      See
    Emergency General Order of October 1, 1996. Petitioner must obtain a certificate
    of appealability in this court before he may proceed on appeal.        Montez , 
    208 F.3d at 867
    . To do so, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2). He “can make such a showing by
    -3-
    demonstrating that the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are deserving of further
    proceedings, subject to a different resolution on appeal, or reasonably debatable
    among jurists of reason.”   Montez , 
    208 F.3d at
    869 (citing   Barefoot v. Estelle ,
    
    463 U.S. 880
    , 893 n.4 (1983)).
    The state trial court denied petitioner’s claim because his parole agreement
    was not a commercial document, as petitioner argued, but a statement of
    conditions for petitioner’s release before the expiration of his sentence. The state
    court noted that petitioner could have elected to serve his sentence instead of
    accepting parole. The federal district court denied petitioner’s claim of a
    constitutional violation on the merits. The district court dismissed without
    prejudice petitioner’s Civil Rights Act, RICO, and FOIA claims, holding that
    these claims were not cognizable in habeas. Based upon our review of the record,
    petitioner’s arguments challenging the parole agreement are frivolous. We find
    no error, and deny petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability.
    Petitioner’s “Memorandum in support of the Petitioner’s Claim” is
    construed as a motion for permission to file a supplemental brief, and is granted.
    Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied.
    Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability is denied and the appeal
    is DISMISSED.
    Entered for the Court
    -4-
    Wade Brorby
    Senior Circuit Judge
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4185

Judges: Tacha, Seymour, Brorby

Filed Date: 11/16/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024