Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03266/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

t.Jnit@d St11r~s ~urr of Appeals 

·t en. .. h c· ,~1-:1 1' • ., ......... ,. 

CHARLES RENTSCHLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TERRY L. CAMPBELL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

APR l 7 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3266 

(D.C. No. 89-3078-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Charles Rentschler challenges the district court's dismissal 

of his complaint against Terry Campbell, the Sheriff of 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3266 Document: 01019971471 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 1 
-- Leavenwo~th £aunty, Kansas, for violation of Mr. Rentschler's 

civil rights. Mr. Rentschler appeals on two grounds. He first 

asserts that the district court abused its discretion in granting 

Mr. Campbell's motion for summary judgment because Mr. Campbell 

failed to submit accompanying affidavits with his motion . He also 

claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment 

because material issues of fact remain in dispute. We find both 

of these contentions to be without merit and affirm the decision 

of the district court. 

At the time that Mr. Rentschler was serving a three-year 

sentence in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, he 

was also subject, in the State of Missouri, to outstanding 

sentences of life imprisonment for second degree murder and thirty 

years for armed criminal action, these sentences to run 

consecutively. Prior to Mr. Rentschler's release from the federal 

penitentiary, Missouri authorities placed a detainer on him to 

ensure his extradition to Missouri at the completion of his 

federal sentence. Officers of the Leavenworth County Sheriff's 

office took Mr. Rentschler, upon his release from federal custody, 

to the Leavenworth District Court which issued a warrant for his 

arrest pending receipt of a Governor's warrant. Mr. Rentschler 

then awaited the completion of his extradition proceedings in the 

Leavenworth County Jail. The Governor of Kansas timely issued a 

warrant in response to Missouri's demand for extradition. 

Mr. Rentschler subsequently filed unsuccessful petitions for 

a writ of habeas corpus in state and federal court as well as this 

action, in which he claimed that Mr. Campbell had violated his 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3266 Document: 01019971471 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 2 
.constitutional rights by . taking him- ~to custody- and confining him 

in the Leavenworth County Jail. The district court dismissed the 

complaint. It concluded that Mr. Rentschler had no statutory or 

constitutional right to a hearing or any other procedural 

safeguard prior to being transferred from federal custody to the 

custody of Mr. Campbell. It also noted that since Mr. Rentschler 

was a federal prisoner at the time of the transfer of custody, he 

was not entitled to the protections of the Uniform Criminal 

Extradition Act (UCEA). Mr. Rentschler subsequently filed a 

motion to amend this judgment, claiming that Mr. Campbell had not 

complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 206(c) because he 

had failed to submit affidavits with his motion for summary 

judgment. The district court denied this motion. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a 

defendant to submit affidavits in support of his motion for 

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). Mr. Rentschler's claim 

based on Rule 56, therefore, must fail. Local Rule 206(c), 

however, does require the movant to support by affidavit all facts 

on which the motion for summary judgment is based. Nonetheless, 

our review of the record indicates that Mr. Campbell corrected his 

initial omission of affidavits within ten days of Mr. Rentschler's 

filing of his Memorandum in Opposition and that this delay did not 

prejudice Mr. 

conclude that 

Rentschler's case in any way. We, therefore, 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Mr. Rentschler's motion to amend. 

Summary judgment is appropriate where 

issue of material fact, and the moving 

-3-

there is no genuine 

party is entitled to 

Appellate Case: 89-3266 Document: 01019971471 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 3 
-- judgment as a matter-0 ·of law. Fed .. -R. Ci v. P-. 56 ( c) •. We review 

the parties' allegations of fact in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party, Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 260 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 986 (1987), and resolve any doubt 

over the existence of triable issues in his favor as well. United 

States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986). Our 

review of the district court's conclusions of law is de novo. 

Wheeler, 825 F.2d at 260. 

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Mr. 

Rentschler has failed to demonstrate that a genuine and material 

factual dispute exists. Instead, Mr. Rentschler's objection to 

the district court's granting of Mr. Campbell's motion for summary 

judgment appears to be that the district court erred as a matter 

of law. We will, therefore, conduct a de novo review of the 

district court's legal determinations. 

"When a person is convicted of independent crimes in state 

and federal courts, the question of jurisdiction and custody is 

one of comity between the two governments and not a personal right 

of the prisoner." Jones v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 493, 493-94 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002 (1964). Either sovereign may 

voluntarily surrender the prisoner to the other, Hayward v. 

Looney, 246 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1957), and the prisoner has no 

standing to complain. Stripling v. United States, 172 F.2d 636, 

637 (10th Cir. 1949). Although the UCEA does create procedural 

protections for fugitives from justice being transferred between 

states which have adopted the Act, these protections qo not inure 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-3266 Document: 01019971471 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 4 
~to fug~tives - trans~erred between -state and federal authorities. 

See Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-2701 to 22-2730 (1988). 

Mr. Rentschler claims that the district court erred in 

dismissing his claim. The case law is clear, however, that Mr. 

Rentschler, having been convicted of f elonies in both state and 

federal court, has no standing to challenge his temporary transfer 

to the Kansas authorities at the behest of Missouri. His transfer 

was a matter of comity between federal and state authorities. 

Furthermore, because he complains only of the transfer from 

federal to state authorities, he cannot benefit from the 

procedural protections of the UCEA. Since Mr. Rentschler has 

failed to demonstrate a legal basis for his claim, the district 

court properly granted Mr. Campbell's motion for summary judgment. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the 

district court. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-3266 Document: 01019971471 Date Filed: 04/17/1990 Page: 5