Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01893/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01893-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norman Carlson
Appellee
Tom Martin
Appellee
Virgil Earl Nelson
Appellant

Document Text:

PU~~ISJ! 

' UNITED STATES .,,couRT OF APP,.E~S JUN 11990 

TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

VIRGIL EARL NELSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

NORMAN CARLSON, Director of 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

and TOM MARTIN, Warden of 

the El Reno Federal 

Correctional Institute, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

87-1893 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

· Clerk · ·· 

On Appeal From .The 

United States, Distr.i£t Court 

For The Western Distiict 

Of Oklahoma ·· (D.C. Civil No. 86-2818-R) 

Susan M. Otto, As~il;ltant Federal Public Defender, Oklaho~•~tr,'Ci ty, 

Oklahom~, for Pet1t1oner-Appellant. . 

Ted A. Richardsonv Assistant United States Attorney (Wil~iam s. 

Price, United States Attorney, and Wm. Lee Borden, Jr;'-;·"Assistant 

United States Attorney, on the brief), Oklahoma City.,· Oklaijom~; for Respondents-Appellees. · "'"''' 

Before LOGAN, SETH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 87-1893 Document: 01019851177 Date Filed: 06/01/1990 Page: 1 
Virgil Earl Nelson appeals from an order of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma which denied 

his motion for permanent injunctive relief against the Director of 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of the federal prison 

in which Nelson is an inmate. Nelson's motion for permanent 

injunctive relief was based on his claim that his rights under the 

Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 u.s.c. app. III, §§ 1-8, 

(IADA), had been violated by prior transfers from federal custody 

to that of Arizona. Thus, the State of Arizona was precluded from 

placing another detainer on him for retrial in state court 

following a hung jury on certain state criminal charges on a prior 

transfer. For the reasons that follow, we hold that Nelson's 

motion for permanent injunctive relief is one which cannot be 

brought under the IADA. 

The facts underlying Nelson's claim for injunctive relief are 

as follows. In April 1985, Nelson was in federal custody during 

the pendency of a trial on federal charges. [We note that Nelson 

currently is serving a term at the El Reno Correctional Institute 

in Oklahoma following conviction on the federal charges then 

pending against him.] On April 12, 1985, Arizona lodged a 

detainer against Nelson in connection with state criminal charges 

pending against him there, and Arizona obtained custody of Nelson 

through a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Nelson was 

returned to federal custody without having had a trial or other 

disposition on the state charges then pending in Arizona. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1893 Document: 01019851177 Date Filed: 06/01/1990 Page: 2 
After Arizona obtained custody of Nelson a second time, the 

state criminal charges were tried. The jury reached a mixed 

verdict of guilty, not guilty, and a hung jury on the various 

charges. Nelson again was returned to federal custody. Another 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued by Arizona 

indicating that another state trial was scheduled for January 1987 

on the charges left unresolved in the August 1985 trial. On 

December 5, 1986, Nelson was given a notice of untried indictment; 

he executed an acknowledgment of the notice and requested a 30-day 

waiting period. Nelson filed his motion for injunctive relief in 

federal district court on December 30, 1986, and this appeal 

followed the denial of the motion. 

As stated above, Nelson is seeking permanent injunctive 

relief in federal court to prevent his federal custodian from 

returning him to Arizona for a second trial on state criminal 

charges following a hung jury on some charges tried at the first 

state court trial. He alleges that under the undisputed facts set 

out above, Article IV(e) of the IADA was violated in May 1985, 

prior to his first trial in Arizona, and that because the hung 

jury rendered that trial a nullity at least with respect to the 

unresolved charges, he is not barred from raising the alleged IADA 

violation in a pretrial motion before a second trial even though 

he did not raise it before the first trial in Arizona, to which he 

voluntarily submitted in August 1985. 

This court has held that the filing of a detainer triggers 

the protections of the IADA, and that the IADA must be enforced 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1893 Document: 01019851177 Date Filed: 06/01/1990 Page: 3 
according to its terms. The only remedy mentioned in the IADA for 

a violation of its Article IV(e), which requires a trial prior to 

a prisoner being returned to the sending state, is that ''the court 

shall enter an order dismissing the [indictment, information, or 

complaint] with prejudice." IADA, app. III, § 2, Art. IV(e). The 

IADA contemplates that the remedy of dismissal is available in the 

appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the charges are 

pending. See id.; see also,~, IADA, app. III, § 2, Art. V(c) 

(court where charges are pending shall enter order dismissing them 

with prejudice); see also Campbell v. Commonwealth of Va., 453 

F.2d 1230, 1231 (10th Cir.), and Trigg v. Moseley, 433 F.2d 364, 

366 (10th Cir.) (federal prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus 

relief from state detainer must first seek relief in the state 

court where charges are pending). Although a federal court may 

have jurisdiction to grant relief from the burden of a state 

detainer in the appropriate circumstances, Campbell, 453 F.2d at 

1231, the case at bar does not present circumstances warranting 

such relief. Here, any remedy which may be available to Nelson 

should be pursued through the appropriate state courts of Arizona. 

We do not express an opinion here on whether the IADA was 

violated so as to entitle Nelson to dismissal of the Arizona 

charges, or whether Nelson may have waived his right to raise the 

alleged violation of the IADA by voluntarily submitting to the 

August 1985 state trial which resulted in a hung jury on certain 

charges. We hold only that any remedy which may be available to 

Nelson under the IADA under the circumstances before us is a 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1893 Document: 01019851177 Date Filed: 06/01/1990 Page: 4 
matter for consideration by the appropriate state courts of 

Arizona. 

In addition to the above, our holding in this ~ppeal is also 

supported by policy considerations. The expressly stated purpose 

of the !ADA is "to encourage the expeditious and orderly 

disposition of [criminal] charges and determination of the proper 

status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, 

informations, or complaints." !ADA, app. III, § 2, Art. I. To 

grant the injunction here sought would delay resolution of the 

issues raised concerning the !ADA as well as resolution of the 

state criminal charges pending. 

To allow Nelson to bring an action for injunctive relief in 

federal court would not only be contrary to the contemplated 

remedy of the IADA noted above, but would be inconsistent with 

principles of comity insofar as the federal courts would be 

interfering with state criminal proceedings which are pending. 

Trigg v. Moseley, 433 F.2d at 366 (principles of comity require 

that issues involving alleged violations of the IADA and the 

appropriate relief, if any, be determined in the first instance in 

the state court where the charges are pending). 

Based on all the foregoing, the federal district court's 

order denying Nelson's motion is vacated insofar as it constitutes 

a ruling on the merits, and the cause is remanded to the federal 

district court with instructions to dismiss the proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1893 Document: 01019851177 Date Filed: 06/01/1990 Page: 5