Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08065/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08065-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unttied State:::. C-0 .tr\; ol Api,Mla 'r',...~+-h ,.;,..,...,,;t 

FEB 1 31991 

ROBER'l' L. HO.ECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAM MARTIN ZANETTI, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v . 

STATE OF WYOMING; DUANE 

SHILLINGER, Warden, Wyoming 

State Penitentiary, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-8065 

(D. C. No. 90-0007K) 

(D. Wyo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Zanetti appeals the denial of his petition for habeas 

corpus. We affirm. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

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

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

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

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 1 
This case does not fit the mold of the usual habeas corpus 

case. Mr. Zanetti entered a nolo plea to three state felony 

offenses. Mr. Zanetti, who is represented by counsel, does not 

challenge either these convictions or the ensuing sentences in 

this action. 

Mr. Zanetti filed a voluminous petition pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2241, which grants to courts the power to issue writs of habeas 

corpus. This petition may be generally summarized by stating that 

Mr. Zanetti complains that prison officials are improperly 

limiting his contacts with counsel who are busy working on a 

petition for post-conviction relief and defending Mr. Zanetti in a 

civil action. Defendants responded to this petition with various 

documents evidencing his convictions and their affirmance by the 

Supreme Court of Wyoming. See Zanetti v. State, 783 P.2d 134 

(Wyo. 1989). Mr. Zanetti in turn responded with an "Emergency 

Petition for Release Pending Review." This was denied by the 

district court and Mr. Zanetti then filed a petition for mandamus 

with this court. We denied relief for failure to state a claim. 

See Zanetti v. United States District Court, No. 90-8015, Order 

filed February 8, 1990. 

A hearing was then held before the district court. At this 

hearing, a plea was made to the district court to release Mr. 

Zanetti so he could aid his counsel in the defense of the civil 

case or to determine the constitutionality of the prison rules and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 2 
issue injunctive relief. Counsel for Mr. Zanetti requested the 

district court take judicial notice on the prison rules and 

regulations dealing with emergency telephone calls and the 

prohibition of unsupervised inmate use of telephones. The only 

other evidence offered to the court was the affidavit of Mr. 

Zanetti's counsel, the substance of which was that he could not 

talk to his client whenever he wished nor for as long as was 

desired. 

The district court denied relief stating in part: 

The substance of this petition ... is an attack on the 

penitentiary's rules and regulations dealing with 

attorney-client communications, and, thus more 

appropriately the subject of an action under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983 .••• 

Release is not appropriate here; Zanetti is not 

attacking his sentence or conviction .... 

On appeal, Mr. Zanetti sets forth nine issues, which we 

quote: 

ISSUE I. Whether the petitioner was provided a 

full and fair opportunity for determination of his 

issues by the district court. 

ISSUE II. Whether petitioner was entitled to 

appear and give testimony and present other witnesses 

and evidence of facts outside of the record necessary to 

determination of his evidentiary hearing. 

ISSUE III. Whether habeas 

USC 2241 is the appropriate 

constitutional and statutory 

conditions of confinement. 

corpus pursuant to 28 

remedy to address 

deprivations due to 

ISSUE IV. Whether the oral order from the bench is 

controlling over the printed order and whether the order 

from the bench must be reflected by the printed or 

written order. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 3 
ISSUE v. Whether the court can ignore written 

affidavits of petitioner and counsel to the contrary and 

state there is nothing in the record to indicate the 

prison will not comply with their own rules. 

ISSUE VI. Whether the rules and regulations of the 

Wyoming State Penitentiary as on file in the state 

registry of administrative rules and regulations, and as 

published in the inmate rules handbook given to each 

inmate, creates a protected interest for each inmate. 

ISSUE VII. Whether inmates can be denied 

confidential attorney-client relationships and denied 

access to court and a restraint of trade on attorneys by 

arbitrary and unreasonable prison rules and regulations. 

ISSUE VIII. Whether the petitioner-appellant's 

substantive rights have been denied and does this 

constitute holding the inmate in violation of the 

constitution and laws of the United States. 

ISSUE IX. Whether the district court erred in 

denying the petitioner's habeas corpus. 

The only issue warranting discussion is the remedy. Congress 

enacted 28 u.s.c. § 2254. This statute clearly and unequivocally 

requires a person in state custody to show he has exhausted his 

state remedies prior to seeking habeas relief in federal court. 

Mr. Zanetti proceeded to federal court first and therefore has not 

exhausted his potential state remedies. Mr. Zanetti argues that 

he may file in federal court under§ 2241, the general statute 

implementing habeas corpus. He apparently feels that by utilizing 

§ 2241 he is not required to exhaust state remedies. We do not 

agree. 

Congress, in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 2254, clearly and 

specifically required a state prisoner to exhaust his potential 

state remedies as a condition to the institution of federal habeas 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 4 
relief. Applying the well-known rule of statutory construction 

that the specific controls the general, there can be no doubt 

concerning the outcome. 

The United States Supreme Court decisively dealt with the 

issue of exhaustion in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). In 

this case the Supreme Court gave very specific advice to litigants 

such as Mr. Zanetti: "[B]efore you bring any claims to federal 

court, be sure that you first have taken each one to state 

court .... " Id. at 520. Rose clearly requires a state prisoner to 

exhaust his state remedies prior to commencing a federal habeas 

proceeding. We recognize that Rose dealt with post-conviction 

relief under § 2254. Nevertheless, to allow a state prisoner to 

potentially circumvent the exhaustion requirement by filing his 

habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 would be to allow form to 

prevail over substance and would render 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

meaningless. Moreover, the fundamental exhaustion requirement is 

recognized by courts interpreting § 2241 independently from 

§ 2254. See, ~, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of 

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490 (1973) ("The exhaustion doctrine (as 

applied to § 224l(a)] is a judicially crafted instrument which 

reflects a careful balance between important interests of 

federalism and the need to preserve the writ of habeas corpus 

.... "); Williams v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, 463 F.2d 993, 

995 (8th Cir. 1972) ("Preliminary to seeking relief in a federal 

district court by virtue of 28 u.s.c. § 2241 et seq., a state 

prisoner must show that the state's highest court has been 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 5 
afforded the opportunity to pass upon the assertions of 

constitutional deprivation."); United States ex rel. Scranton v. 

State of New York, 402 F. Supp. 1010, 1012 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), aff'd, 

532 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1976) ("Although 28 U.S.C. § 2241 does not 

specifically require the exhaustion of state court remedies, the 

exhaustion requirement is part of the common law heritage which 

applies to all habeas statutes."). Therefore, even if the filing 

under § 2241 is proper, the exhaustion requirement still exists 

and Mr. Zanetti has not met this requirement. 

Appellant requests we issue a certificate of probable cause. 

We grant this request and AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-8065 Document: 010110099968 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 6