Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03159/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03159-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 3 1991 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, Rev., 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT L. MATTHEWS; JOE 

VANKEMPEN, Director, Correctional Programs Division, 

Bureau of Prisons, 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-3159 

) (D.C. No. 88-CV-3122) 

) (D. Kansas) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Clerk 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal by a federal prisoner from the denial of a 

writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claims he should have been 

released from the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth because of 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

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

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

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

Appellate Case: 91-3159 Document: 010110133297 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 1 
his improper classification and because he was being denied proper 

medical treatment. According to papers filed in this court, 

petitioner is no longer confined at Leavenworth but has been 

transferred to F.C.I., Memphis, Tennessee. 1 

The petitioner's transfer has mooted the habeas issues of 

this case. Fletcher v. Warden, 641 F.2d 850 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981). Petitioner sought only the remedy of 

release; therefore, his removal from the institution and the 

conditions of confinement of which he complains leave us without a 

justiciable controversy. Id. Without such a controversy, we are 

without jurisdiction. Id. 

Even if the transfer had not occurred, we are satisfied the 

district court ruled correctly on the merits of this case. 

Although petitioner complains his institutional classification was 

without benefit of what petitioner asserts are due process 

requirements, the assignment of prisoners is not subject to due 

process standards. Meachum v. Fane, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). 

Moreover, prison officials retain broad discretion over the 

assignment of inmates. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983). 

While petitioner asserted he was deprived of proper medical 

attention, that claim was based specifically upon his contention 

that the Leavenworth facility cannot provide for his medical 

needs. His relocation obviates consideration of the merits of 

that claim, but the district court determined medical records 

submitted by both parties showed "no indication of present serious 

1

Nothing in the record indicates the confinement conditions which 

prompted the petition in this case exist in the institution to 

which Mr. Williams has been transferred. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3159 Document: 010110133297 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 2 
medical needs that were not adequately addressed during 

petitioner's incarceration at Leavenworth." 

clearly supported by the documents in the record. 

That finding is 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3159 Document: 010110133297 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 3