Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02017/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02017-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WAKYN S. FERRIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

A.UG 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

SECOND JUDICIAL COURT (DR) 

JUDGE ANN KASS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-2017 

(D.C. No. 90-0922M) 

(D.N.M.) 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Petitioner Wakyn S. Ferris appeals from the dismissal of his 

habeas corpus petition without prejudice and the denial of a 

certificate of probable cause by the federal district court. See 

28 u.s.c. SS 2254 & 2253. The district court adopted the 

recoDDDendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss the petition. 

The magistrate judge determined that, given ongoing state 

proceedings in this domestic relations matter, no exceptional 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 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: 91-2017 Document: 010110130180 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 1 
circumstances existed which would warrant a federal court 

entertaining petitioner's habeas claims. See Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971) (only bad faith or harassment or other 

extraordinary circumstances indicating irreparable injury are 

prerequisite to any federal action to enjoin state criminal 

proceedings); Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 252 (1886); Dolack v. 

Allenbrand, 548 F.2d 891, 893-94 (10th Cir. 1977). We affirm. 

Petitioner claims that he was incarcerated for failure to pay 

child support and failure to appear. IR. doc. 1 at 2. He 

presents the following facts: 

The state district court issued an order to show 

cause why petitioner should not be held in contempt of 

court [for failure to pay child support]. Petitioner 

timely filed an affidavit of prejudice for recusal of 

the trial judge ...• The [state] district trial judge 

refused to recuse herself from the contempt proceedings 

[for failure to pay child support] and petitioner 

properly sought writ of prohibition from the state 

supreme court, which was summarily denied. In a hearing 

(in which petitioner was absent) the state trial court 

issued a bench warrant for petitioner's arrest. The 

state trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the 

arrest warrant. 

Petitioner's Form A-11, pt.Bat 6, filed Jan. 31, 1991. We 

construe petitioner's prose pleadings liberally in accordance 

with the standards in Hall v. Bellman, No. 90-6326, slip op. at 6 

(10th Cir. June 3, 1991) [1991 WL 90172]. Petitioner contends 

that the state district court judge lacked jurisdiction in the 

underlying child support proceeding; consequently, she lacked 

jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant when he failed to appear. 

Petitioner's Form A-11, pt.Bat 7, filed Jan. 31, 1991. He also 

contends that he is threatened with future civil contempt and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2017 Document: 010110130180 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 2 
custody if the state district judge continues to act without 

jurisdiction. IR. doc. 4 at 1. 

Respondent-appellee indicates that no judgment has been 

entered in the contempt proceeding for failure to appear and that 

appellant is not in custody. Petitioner filed his petition after 

being arrested and while in the Bernalillo County Detention 

Center. The "in custody" requirement of the habeas statute is 

determined as of the date of filing. Carafas v. Lavallee, 391 

U.S. 234, 238 (1968). Release sometimes may render a case moot, 

but it does not affect the in custody determination. Mcveigh v. 

Smith, 872 F.2d 725, 727 (6th Cir. 1989). Whether petitioner was 

incarcerated for failure to appear or for civil contempt for 

failure to pay child support, it is apparent that he met the "in 

custody" requirement for habeas jurisdiction. See Fernos-Lopez v. 

Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); Leonard v. 

Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 841 (4th Cir. 1986). We agree with the 

Fourth Circuit that petitioner's release does not necessarily moot 

the civil contempt issue because of the chance of recurrence. 

Leonard, 804 Y.2d at 842-43. On the other hand, petitioner has 

not demonstrated any collateral consequences from the state 

district judge issuing a warrant for his arrest based on his 

failure to appear; we must conclude that this portion of his 

petition is moot. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 239; Broughton v. 

North Carolina, 717 F.2d 147, 148-49 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. 

denied, 466 U.S. 940 (1984). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2017 Document: 010110130180 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 3 
The state district court may sanction a party for failure to 

appear,~ N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 34-1-2 (1990 Rep. Pamp.), 1 and it 

may enforce alimony and child support orders through contempt, see 

N.M. Stat. Ann. S 40-4-19 (1989 Rep. Pamp.); Corliss v. Corliss, 

549 P.2d 1070, 1074 (N.M. 1976). Although petitioner 

unsuccessfully sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify the 

state trial judge in advance of his incarceration, he has not 

demonstrated exhaustion of state remedies. See N.M. Stat. Ann. 

§§ 39-3-2 (civil appeals), 39-3-15(A) (appeals from contempt 

orders) (1978). See also Rose v. Lundyf 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) 

(total exhaustion required); Leonard, 804 F.2d at 840-41 (fathers 

who failed to pay child support and were incarcerated under civil 

contempt orders had failed ·to exhaust state remedies). Petitioner 

has failed to make the requisite substantial showing of the denial 

of a federal right for the issuance of a certificate of probable 

cause, see Lozada v. Deeds, 111 S. Ct. 860, 861-62 (1991); 

accordingly we DENY his motion for a certificate of probable 

cause, GRANT his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS 

this appeal. 

SO ORDERED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 The record does not indicate that petitioner has suffered a 

conviction for criminal contempt based on his failure to appear. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-2017 Document: 010110130180 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 4