Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03270/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry L. Campbell
Appellee
Donald Gee
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

MAY l 1 9 

DONALD GEE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TERRY L. CAMPBELL, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

.. TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3270 

(D.C. No. 89-3084-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and TACHA, 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. 

Petitioner brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He alleges that the defendant/sheriff of Leavenworth County, 

Kansas, acting through his subordinate, violated his "extradition 

rights." The district court granted summary judgment dismissing 

* 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: 89-3270 Document: 01019967232 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 1 
petitioner's case for failure to establish that any federally 

recognized rights had been violated. 

Shortly before petitioner's mandatory release from federal 

custody in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 

the respondent was informed that the State of Wyoming had placed a 

detainer on the petitioner. Upon his mandatory release, federal 

prison officials released him directly into the custody of the 

respondent's employees who incarcerated him in the Leavenworth 

County, Kansas jail. Thereafter a warrant was issued directing 

the respondent to hold petitioner pending receipt of a requisition 

for his extradition to the State of Wyoming. Basically, petitioner complains that the acts of the respondent in taking petitioner from the custody of federal officials into his own custody 

without extradition proceedings violated his federal rights. 

The only authority on which petitioner relies is the Uniform 

Criminal Extradition Act adopted in Kansas as Kan. Stat. Ann. 

§ 22-2701, et seq. That act does not apply to transfers between 

the United States and the various states. We have held: 

Either the federal or a state government may voluntarily 

surrender its prisoner to the other without the consent 

of the prisoner. Whether jurisdiction and custody of a 

prisoner shall be retained or surrendered is a matter of 

comity and is to be determined by the sovereign having 

custody. 

Hayward v. Looney, 246 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1957). 

We agree with the trial court that petitioner has failed to 

establish that any right cognizable under section 1983 has been 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3270 Document: 01019967232 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 2 
• 

violated. Appellant's motion for leave to proceed without 

prepayment of fees is granted. For the reasons set forth in the 

trial court's order of September 13, 1989, the dismissal of this 

action is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3270 Document: 01019967232 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 3