Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03280/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOSEPH PETER FRANKENBERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cin:1.1:t 

APR 24 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-3280 

(D.C. No. 89-3079-S) 

(Dist. of Kansas) 

TERRY L. CAMPBELL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Prose plaintiff Joseph Peter Frankenberry appeals the 

district court's order granting defendant Terry L. Campbell, a 

Leavenworth County, Kansas sheriff, summary judgment on 

plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages arising from 

*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: 89-3280 Document: 01019972039 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
plaintiff's extradition from federal detention in the District of 

Kansas to the custody of the State of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff's 

motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is also before us. 

We grant the ifp motion, and we affirm. 

The undisputed facts as stated in the district court's order 

reveal that, while plaintiff was in federal custody in Kansas, the 

State of Pennsylvania placed a detainer on him to serve his 

sentence on a conviction there for criminal homicide. When 

plaintiff's federal sentence ended, he was released and 

transferred to the custody of the Leavenworth County Sheriff's 

Office and placed in the county jail pending extradition. Kansas 

authorities duly initiated extradition proceedings, and plaintiff 

filed his lawsuit challenging the authority of the Kansas 

officials to arrest and incarcerate him. 

In essence, plaintiff claims that the federal authorities 

were bound to follow the procedures in the Uniform Criminal 

Extradition Act, see,~, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-2701-2730 

(1988), before turning him over to Kansas authorities. He also 

claims that the Kansas authorities had no power to arrest him. We 

agree with the district court, however, that the Act has no 

application to the federal government and that plaintiff's 

transfer from federal custody to the custody of the Kansas 

officials implicated no procedural protections. See Hayward v. 

Looney, 246 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1957) (federal surrender of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3280 Document: 01019972039 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
jurisdiction and custody to state is matter of comity and is to be 

determined by sovereign having custody}. Upon the federal 

government's surrender of jurisdiction and custody of plaintiff, 

the Kansas sheriff's office lawfully took plaintiff into custody 

on the basis of the detainer from Pennsylvania. See Kan. Stat. 

Ann. § 22-2714 (1988) (authorizing warrantless arrest upon 

reasonable information of felony charge in another state}. 

The district court's order is accordingly AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3280 Document: 01019972039 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3