Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04020/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

. - FILED 

United States Co~rt (?f Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C1rcu1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT SE? 0 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CALVIN K. RICKETT, SR., 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

NORMAND. HAYWARD, Sheriff, 

Salt Lake City, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4020 

D.C. No. 90-C-978 S 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Calvin K. Rickett, Sr., a resident of 

Utah, did not file state income tax returns for the years 1982 to 

1988. Upon request of the Utah State Tax Commission, a state 

district court issued a mandate compelling petitioner to file the 

tax returns. Petitioner refused to comply with the mandate and 

* 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. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-4020 Document: 010110084246 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
,. . -

was held in civil contempt and incarcerated. See Utah Code Ann. 

§ 78-32-12 (1987 Repl. Vol.) (civil contempt statute). While 

incarcerated, he petitioned for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He now appeals from the district court's dismissal 

of the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

The district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack 

of exhaustion; petitioner has not demonstrated that available 

state remedies have been exhausted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2554(b) & 

(c); Rose v. Lundyf 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Moreover, because 

petitioner has since purged the civil contempt by filing the 

required returns and has been released from custody, his habeas 

claims are now moot. "[O]nce a civil contempt order is purged, no 

live case or controversy remains for adjudication." In re 

Campbell, 628 F.2d 1260, 1261 (9th Cir. 1980). See also In re 

Hunt, 754 F.2d 1290, 1293 (5th Cir. 1985) ("Generally, the 

discharge of a civil contempt moots any appeal of the contempt 

judgment.") (citing Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S Chuen On, 693 F.2d 1171, 

1173 n.3 (5th Cir. 1982)). And there are no collateral 

consequences which have survived petitioner's release from 

incarceration. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982); 

Broughton v. North Carolina, 717 F.2d 147 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. 

denied, 466 U.S. 940 (1984). Because petitioner's claims are 

moot, we must DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4020 Document: 010110084246 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2