Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06287/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earl Allen
Appellee
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Charles Curtis Harris
Appellant

Document Text:

FILE·o 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States C•Jurt ~f Appeals 

Tenth Cir'v.r: 

MM~ 2 0 'l9SO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CHARLES CURTIS HARRIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

EARL ALLEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6287 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1048-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

We grant petitioner Charles Curtis Harris' motion for Leave 

to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees and 

application for a certificate of probable cause. 

Petitioner, proceeding prose, attacks his conviction in 

Oklahoma state court of driving under the influence of alcohol. 

He alleges that violations of his federal constitutional rights at 

* 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: 89-6287 Document: 01019966442 Date Filed: 03/20/1990 Page: 1 
trial support his claim for habeas corpus relief under 28 U. S.C. 

§ 2254. 

We agree with the district court that, because Harris fully 

discharged his sentence before attacking it under the federal 

habeas corpus statute, he does not satisfy that statute's "in 

custody" requirement. See Maleng v. Cook, 109 S. Ct. 1923 (1989) 

(per curiam). Accordingly, the action must be dismissed for lack 

of jurisdicti on . 

Harris is currently in prison pursuant to subsequent felony 

convictions. The district court noted that in Maleng, the Supreme 

Court l i berally construed the petition before it, deeming it to 

attack the subsequent convictions, for which petitioner met the 

"in custody" requirement. We agree with the court below that such 

a construction here, because i t might "foreclose Petitioner's 

rights in the future," Harris v. Allen, Civ. No. 89-1048, slip op 

at 3 (W . D. Okla . Aug . 17 , 1989), is inappropriate. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

- 2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6287 Document: 01019966442 Date Filed: 03/20/1990 Page: 2