Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03224/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03224-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL .. . J l 

Unit.ed States Co~~rt ~ Appea. P 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'i'enth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NELSON 0. DUARTE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY L . HENMAN, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3224 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-3017) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on petitioner Nelson O. 

Duarte's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

without payment of costs of fees. 

In order to succeed on his motion, petitoner must show both 

the financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the 

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and 

facts in support of the issues raised on appeal . See 28 U.S.C . 

§ 1915(d); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan 

v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

* 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: 92-3224 Document: 010110154901 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 1 
The district court dismissed the petition pursuant to 42 

u.s.c. § 2241 because it failed to allege facts supporting habeas 

corpus relief. The district court also denied petitioner's motion 

to amend to allege a civil rights violation because plaintiff was 

afforded appropriate due process in connection with the treatment 

he complained of while incarcerated at the United States Prison 

Lompoc. 

A petition for habeas corpus relief must as a threshold matter challenge the underlying legality or the length of the petitioner's incarceration. In contrast, petitioner alleges he was 

placed in administrative detention and retained there pending 

investigation because prison officials received false and unreliable information that he was planning an escape attempt. An 

investigation revealed sufficient evidence to convince prison 

officials to conclude petitioner was a participant in an escape 

plan. Consequently petitioner was transferred from Lompoc to the 

United States Prison Leavenworth. He remained in administrative 

confinement at Lompoc until the transfer to Leavenworth less than 

six months later. Petitioner was not disciplined nor was his 

prison term affected as a consequence of the investigation. 

We agree with the district court that petitioner has failed 

to state a cause of action under 42 U.S . C. § 2241. Petitioner 

acknowledged as much in his request to amend. Similarly, after 

reviewing the entire record and the allegations therein, we must 

agree that prisoners have very limited due process rights when 

prison officials address prison security issues. Whitley v. 

Albers, 475 U.S . 312, 321 (1986) . This is particularly true when, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3224 Document: 010110154901 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 2 
as here, the consequences are nonpunitive. Hewitt v . Helms, 459 

U.S . 460, 476 (1983 ) . 

We conclude that petitioner can make no rational argument on 

the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. 

Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. The appeal is dismissed. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3224 Document: 010110154901 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 3