Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02301/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02301-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

J. TONY BOWMAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of AppeaJs 

Tenrh Circuit 

DEC .. 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. ) No. 89-2117 

HERB YAZZIE, GEORGE JOHN, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) and 89-2301 

) (D.C. No. CIV 89-0453-JP) 

) (D.N.M.) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner-appellant J. Tonny Bowman appeals from the 

district's court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus, 28 u.s.c. S 2254 and 25 u.s.c. S 1303. Petitioner, a 

Navajo tribal judge, was removed from office during a dispute over 

the constitution of the tribal government. Petitioner was not in 

custody at the time he filed his habeas petition; subsequently, he 

served a thirty day sentence for contempt of court arising out of 

his removal. Counsel conceded during oral argument that 

petitioner is no longer in custody. 

* 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: 89-2301 Document: 010110097218 Date Filed: 12/06/1990 Page: 1 
The Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 u.s.c. §§ 1301-1303, provides 

that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be 

available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test 

the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe." 25 

u.s.c. § 1303 (emphasis supplied). Section 1303 provides "the 

exclusive means for federal court review of tribal criminal 

proceedings." Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 67 

(1978). In enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act, Congress sought 

to balance the competing goals of preventing injustices by tribal 

governments against the need to avoid interference with tribal 

sovereignty. Id. at 62-67. Congress rejected proposals for 

federal court review of Indian Civil Rights Act violations arising 

in the civil context and limited federal court review of criminal 

matters to the "less intrusive" remedy of habeas corpus. Id. at 

67-71. Given the deference to tribal sovereignty inherent in 25 

u.s.c. § 1303, we are convinced that Congress sought to impose the 

same requirement of custody on a petitioner seeking habeas corpus 

relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act as one proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 & 2255. See Weatherwax v. Fairbanks, 619 F. 

Supp. 294, 296 n.3 (D. Mont. 1985) (federal habeas law developed 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2254 applicable by analogy to habeas actions 

brought under 25 u.s.c. S 1303). 

The federal habeas statutes empower federal courts to 

entertain petitions for writs of habeas corpus from persons "in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws .•• of the 

United States." 28 u.s.c. SS 2254 & 2255 (emphasis supplied). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2301 Document: 010110097218 Date Filed: 12/06/1990 Page: 2 
One need not be physically incarcerated to satisfy the "in 

custody" requirement; a petitioner on parole may be equally 

entitled to habeas relief. Malena v. Cook, 109 s. Ct. 1923, 1925 

(1989); Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 507 n.3 (1984); United 

States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 1980). However, 

"while the concept of 'custody' extends beyond incarceration to 

parole on an unexpired sentence, it does not go so far as to 

include 'the situation where a habeas petitioner suffers no 

present restraint from a conviction' at the time of the filing of 

the habeas petition." Waldon v. Cowley, 880 F.2d 291, 292 (10th 

Cir. 1989) (quoting Malena, 109 s. Ct. at 1926). The fact that 

particular economic and social opportunities may be foreclosed to 

the petitioner as a result of his prior conviction is not 

sufficient _to establish custody under federal habeas statutes. 

Id. Moreover, even though the conviction under attack might be 

used to demonstrate collateral consequences such as an enhanced 

sentence as a recidivist in a state court, such concerns do not 

constitute a present restraint entitling a petitioner to habeas 

review. See id. Under the doctrine of "capable of repetition yet 

evading review," Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 

515 (1911), a habeas action may lie where petitioner is no longer 

in custody. "That doctrine, however, is applicable only when 

there is 'a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party 

would be subjected to the same action again.'" Lane v. Williams, 

455 U.S. 624, 634 (1982) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 

147, 149 (1975)). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2301 Document: 010110097218 Date Filed: 12/06/1990 Page: 3 
Petitioner is not presently being detained by respondent, was 

not in detention at the time the habeas petition was filed and is 

not on parole. Petitioner alleges that, as a result of his 

contempt conviction, he is experiencing difficulty establishing a 

law practice and suffers a continuing injury to his reputation. 

Such circumstances are insufficient as a matter of law to meet the 

custody requirement imposed by federal habeas statutes. 

Petitioner also argues that, because respondents could imprison 

their political opponents during tribal elections and then release 

them upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the custody 

requirement should be waived under the doctrine of "capable of 

repetition yet evading review." We disagree. Petitioner's 

prediction of future harm is too speculative, see Vendenberg v. 

Rogers, 801 F.2d 377, 378 (10th Cir. 1986), and fails to 

demonstrate that he would personally be subjected to such 

treatment, see Lane, 455 U.S. at 634. Petitioner's habeas corpus 

action therefore was properly dismissed as moot because he was not 

in detention at the time he filed his 25 U.S.C. § 1303 action and 

is not in custody. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2301 Document: 010110097218 Date Filed: 12/06/1990 Page: 4