Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03129/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03129-0/pdf.json

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

---

Ill 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

FILED 

United Stat.cs Court of Appeals 

APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ERNEST G. MOORE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RICHARD R. THORNBURGH, 

J. MICHAEL QUINLAN, G. L. HENMAN, 

NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT, BOOTH GARDNER, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 90-3325 & 

) 91-3129 

) 

) (D.C. No. 90-3473-R) 

) (D. Kansas) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner Ernest G. Moore was convicted of violation of the 

criminal laws of the State of Oregon and was subsequently 

transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas 

(USPL), to serve his sentence. The district court denied his 

petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241. 

Moore v. Thornburgh, No. 90-3473-R, 1991 WL 50265 (unpubl.) 

(D. Kan. Mar. 28, 1991). Petitioner appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

* 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: 91-3129 Document: 010110090138 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 1 
§ 2253. 1 

In response to petitioner's notice of appeal, the district 

court found that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. Based on this finding, the court denied petitioner leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Dist. Ct. R. doc. 41. 

However, petitioner's motion before this court for in forma 

pauperis status is hereby granted. Case No. 90-3325, an 

interlocutory appeal, is dismissed for mootness because of the 

court's disposition of petitioner's appeal on the merits herein. 

Each of the claims based on the compact clause that 

petitioner raises on appeal has been considered and was found to 

be lacking in merit in Stevenson v. Thornburgh, __ F.2d __ , 1991 

WL 164630 (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 1991). 2 We hold that none of the 

1 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 The petitioner in Stevenson was transferred to USPL from 

Pennsylvania. Petitioner herein was transferred to USPL by the 

Oregon Department of Corrections from his then-current assignment 

to a Washington state prison on a prisoner exchange program 

between Washington and Oregon. See Dist. Ct. R. doc. 30 ex. A 

(contract between Washington and Oregon detailing terms of the 

prisoner exchange). Petitioner was transferred to USPL pursuant 

to a contract between Oregon and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

see Dist. Ct. R. doc. 27 attachm. 2 (agreement between the State 

of Oregon and the Federal Bureau of Prisons), under the authority 

of Or. Rev. Stat.§ 421.205. Although petitioner asserts that the 

governors of the states of Oregon and Washington were appropriate 

respondents in this case, the district court was correct to 

dismiss these two named respondents. See Blango v. Thornburgh, 

F.2d __ , 1991 WL 154940, slip op. at 11-12 & n.10 (10th Cir. 

Aug. 26, 1991). 

Based on his claim that Oregon had lost jurisdiction over him 

upon transfer to USPL, petitioner objected to the Oregon Board of 

Parole's notice of parole hearing. In its order on the merits, 

(continued on next page) 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3129 Document: 010110090138 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 2 
.. 

• 

.. issues petitioner has raised before this court is "debatable among 

jurists of reason." Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 

(1983). Petitioner's request for certificate of probable cause to 

appeal denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 

This appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

(continued from previous page) 

the district court noted that because the court 

retained jurisdiction over petitioner while 

would "not address petitioner's claim that the 

Parole is without authority to take any 

petitioner's state sentence." Dist. Ct. R. doc. 

disposition of petitioner's request is correct. 

found that Oregon 

he was at USPL, it 

Oregon Board of 

action regarding 

37 at 5. This 

In addition to the compact clause claims raised in the 

Stevenson case, petitioner herein filed a motion for temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunction, Dist. Ct. R. doc. 34. 

Petitioner claimed that his right of access to the courts was 

compromised by changes in USPL's administration of the prison's 

law library facilities. Petitioner alleged that these changes 

"obstruct[ed petitioner's] ability to render adequate MUTUAL 

ASSISTANCE to other prisoners [as a self-described 'jailhouse 

lawyer']." Id. at 1. This motion was identical to that submitted 

to the district court by a fellow inmate at USPL who was also 

pursuing a habeas corpus petition based on an alleged violation of 

the compact clause after transfer from a state prison. That 

motion was denied by the district court on the grounds that the 

allegation of impediment to right of access to the courts must be 

brought by or on behalf of one whose right has been affected, not 

on behalf of the party attempting to provide legal assistance to 

that person. See, Johnston v. Thornburgh, No. 90-3464-R, Order at 

7, 1991 WL 49649 (unpubl.)(D. Kan. Mar. 14, 1991). The district 

court's analysis of the motion in Johnston was correct. The 

district court apparently neglected to include its analysis of the 

issue in its order dismissing the petition we consider here, but 

that omission is harmless because the claim is without merit. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3129 Document: 010110090138 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 3