Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03067/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert P. Casey
Appellee
Gary L. Henman
Appellee
J. Michael Quinlan
Appellee
Donald Stevenson
Appellant
Richard Thornburg
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Court qf Ap;>ealG Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 9 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

DONALD STEVENSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. No. 91-3067 

RICHARD THORNBURGH; J. MICHAEL QUINLAN; 

GARY L. HENMAN, Warden; ROBERT P. 

CASEY, Governor of Pennsylvania, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE 'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 90-3493-R) 

Application submitted by Donald Stevenson, pro se. 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Donald Stevenson was convicted of a criminal 

offense under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was 

sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, to the custody of the Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Corrections. Pursuant to an agreement between the federal Bureau 

Appellate Case: 91-3067 Document: 01019762489 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 1 
of Prisons and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, petitioner was 

transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas 

(USPL), to serve his sentence. He petitioned the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas for habeas corpus relief 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254. It was his position that his 

transfer violated the "compact clause" of the United States 

Constitution, art. I, § 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the 

Consent of Congress, . enter into any Agreement or Compact 

with another State . . . . II ) . The district court denied his 

petition for habeas corpus, Stevenson v. Thornburgh, 

No. 90-3493-R, 1991 WL 17713 (not published)(D. Kan. Jan. 28, 

1991), Dist. Ct. R. doc. 10 (order denying petition for habeas 

corpus, referred to in this opinion as the Jan. 28, 1991, Order). 

Accord Bickerstaff v. Thornburgh, 755 F. Supp. 977 (D. Kan. 

1991)(same holding under same facts and same claims); Joyner v. 

Henman, 755 F. Supp. 982 (D. Kan. 1991)(same). Petitioner appeals 

1 pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2253. We affirm. 

Petitioner's habeas corpus claim to the district court was 

constructed through the same interrelated arguments concerning the 

constitutionality of his transfer into federal custody as were 

presented by the petitioner in a case recently published by this 

court, Blango v. Thornburgh, ~- F.2d ~-' No. 91-3047 (10th Cir. 

Aug. 16, 1991)(prisoner transferred from the District of Columbia 

1 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. Petitioner's motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis is hereby granted. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3067 Document: 01019762489 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 2 
Department of Corrections to USPL). In Blango we held that the 

petitioner's claims of constitutional violation and of district 

court bias were without merit. In the case before us today, 

petitioner's claims are controlled by our disposition in Blango. 

The fact that petitioner was transferred from a state prison while 

the petitioner in Blango was transferred from a District of 

Columbia prison does not affect our analysis of these issues. 2 

We hold that none of the issues petitioner has raised before 

this court is "debatable among jurists of reason." Barefoot v. 

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983). Petitioner's request for 

certificate of probable cause to appeal denial of his petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The appeal is dismissed. 

2 Pennsylvania statute explicitly permits the state's 

Department of Corrections to contract with the federal government 

for housing of inmates. See 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 310-2 ("The 

Department of Corrections may contract with the Federal Government 

for the housing of inmates in Federal correctional facilities.") 

61 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 72 provided sufficient authority to allow such 

transfers prior to the enactment of section 310-2. Any alleged 

impropriety in the execution of the agreement between the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the federal Bureau of Prisons 

under which petitioner was transferred was rendered moot by the 

complete performance of all obligations by both parties to the 

agreement as if its execution were proper. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3067 Document: 01019762489 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 3