Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06058/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Hernandez
Appellant
T. C. Martin
Appellee
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United Seara Court of Appea-ls 

·remh Cirruit 

,{!.LJG .. 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6058 

v. 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION and 

T. c. MARTIN, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. CIV-87-155-A) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Anthony Hernandez appeals prose an order of the District 

Court denying Hernandez' "Motion for Relief." Hernandez' previous 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus was rejected and a final 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6058 Document: 010110040745 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 1 
, 

order entered on June 27, 1989 denying all relief except for 

Hernandez' entitlement "to expungement of his Parole Commission 

record of documents relating to his 1985 drug conspiracy conviction and later parole action based thereon." Hernandez did not 

appeal from this final order, and his belated attempt to reopen 

the case and obtain his release is ineffectual. For substantially 

the reasons stated in the district court's order (attached), we 

affirm the dismissal of Hernandez' Motion. See Braden v. 30th 

Judicial District Circuit Court of Kentucky. 410 U.S . 484 (1973); 

Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S . 487, 490 n.4 (1971); Chatman-Bey v. 

Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en bane); Hanahan 

v. Luther, 760 F.2d 148, 151 (7th Cir. 1985) . 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6058 Document: 010110040745 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 2 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THF I LED 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA . .. -, ... 

·~r 1 1 _90 · 

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner 

vs. 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION and 

T. C. MARTIN, Warden, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents) 

o BP EB 

- ll0lfJn' ft. DENNIS 

CL!RJC, U.S. DrSTRICT COURT 

Ir lilPunr - CIS1'111<:r a, Ol<L.A~ 

No. CIV-87-155-A 

on June 27, 1989, this Court ordered that petitioner was 

entitled to expungement of documents in his Parole Commission 

record relating to a 1985 drug conspiracy conviction and later 

parole action baaed thereon. This order disposed of all pending 

i ssues and closed the case. Petitioner has now returned to this 

Court with his "Motion for Relief," in which he requests his 

i:mmediate release from respondents' custody, alleging that 

respondents continue to "punish Petitioner for the vacated 

conviction." Specifically, petitioner alleges he is being denied 

halfway house and other treatment options based on this illegal • 

information. Petitioner is no longer an inmate at FCI-El Reno, but 

rather resides at the federal institution in Tucson, Arizona. 

Thus, T. c. Martin, Warden, is no longer his custodian. The 

government has responded to the "Motion for Relief" objecting to 

the relief requested by petitioner. 

Petitioner's original action was for a writ of habeas corpus 

and named as respondents the United States Parole commission and 

Appellate Case: 90-6058 Document: 010110040745 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 3 
f ~ 

• 

'\ 

the warden of hia custodial institution in this judicial district. 

As petitioner is now incarcerated outside of this district, the 

respondent warden no longer ha• custody of him and his request for 

immediate r•lease is · fnappropriate in this Court. Moreover, 

petitioner does not allege a violation ot this Court's order over 

which any continuing jurisdiction could be based. Rather, 

petitioner takes issue with actions of the Bureau of Prisons in 

Tucson, Arizona, regarding his placement and right to program 

options. There is no factual allegation or relief requested over 

which this Court has jurisdiction and the "Motion for Relief" is 

accordingly denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /J ,-.. day Gf January, 1990. 

WAYNE E. ALLEY 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6058 Document: 010110040745 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 4