Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02947/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02947-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deputy Sheriff Herbert F. Nye
Appellee
Joseph Peter Frankenberry
Not Party
Charles Rentschler
Appellant
Sheriff Terry Campbell
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES RENTSCHLER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

and 

JOSEPH PETER FRANKENBERRY, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

FIL 1 D 

United States C.ourr of Appeals 

'rl'!lf!t{~ r.[,:,-,,,: r 

APR 2 a 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

SHERIFF TERRY CAMPBELL, DEPUTY 

SHERIFF HERBERT F. NYE, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2947 

(D.C. No. 88-3231-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

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. 

* 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 ~ase, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2947 Document: 01019971952 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
The -underlying action -was nriginally filed as a -civil rights 

-, complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. However 

denominated, it is clear that petitioner seeks to challenge the 

fact that he is confined by Kansas authorities. Under those 

circumstances, the trial court properly treated the petition as 

one for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The rule then is that any challenge to the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement is properly treated as 

a habeas corpus matter, whereas challenges to conditions 

of confinement may proceed under §1983 without any 

requirement of exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 

The court should be governed by these classifications 

regardless of the relief sought or the label placed by 

the petitioner upon such action. 

Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1979) (emphasis in 

original). The trial court gave the petitioner an opportunity to 

demonstrate that he had exhausted state remedies. Petitioner 

failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted his state remedies, 

and the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice. 

On appeal, the primary thrust of petitioner's argument is 

that the trial court improperly treated this case as a petition 

for habeas corpus. The record abundantly demonstrates that the 

trial court correctly construed the complaint and properly dismissed it for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

We have reviewed the files and records and conclude that 

appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a federal right necessary for the issuance of a certificate of 

probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2947 Document: 01019971952 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2 
- 463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

It is ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee has been paid; 

2. Appellant's application for a certificate of probable 

cause is denied; 

3. The appeal is dismissed; and 

4. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2947 Document: 01019971952 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 3