Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06351/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Steve Hargett
Appellee
Jean L'Aquarius
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JEAN L'AQUARIUS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

F 1 .L l2J 1_j , -, " • 0r t\.n"'I..V 1·• llni-w<l SUU('= ,3,l1r. Li- :,.:-=- ., ,p,.. .. • '"· [ ........ ~ 

APR On 1992 

ROBERT L. tlOECKEP.. Cierl: 

) No. 91-6351 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-1960-C) 

) (W.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 . 

*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: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 1
Appellant Jean L'Aquarius is currently serving a sixty-year 

sentence in the Oklahoma state penitentiary for the distribution 

of marijuana by a felon . In October of 1990, Mr. L'Aquarius filed 

this habeas petition in federal district court, alleging Oklahoma 

did not have personal jurisdiction over him, and Oklahoma law 

prohibiting the distribution of marijuana violates his rights 

under the First Amendment. Additionally, he alleged his 

"conditions of confinement" violate his constitutional rights. 

The State of Oklahoma moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

state remedies. The district court found the record insufficient 

to determine the exhaustion issue and ordered the Oklahoma 

Attorney General to expand the record on that issue. 

With respect to Mr. L'Aquarius' third claim for relief 

challenging the conditions of his confinement, the district court 

found the claim was improperly before the court because it did not 

pertain to the fact or length of his confinement. Further, the 

court found the contention frivolous because Mr. L'Aquarius failed 

to offer any supporting facts. 

After the record was supplemented by the Oklahoma Attorney 

General, the district court dismissed the first two allegations in 

Mr. L'Aquarius' petition for failure to exhaust state remedies as 

required by 28 u.s.c. § 2254. Additionally, the court rejected 

Mr. L'Aquarius' attempts to challenge disciplinary actions taken 

by the Department of Corrections in 1988 and 1989 on the grounds 

his broad allegation concerning the conditions of his confinement 

was insufficient to put the State on notice of this new claim. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 2
Although admitting he did not pursue either a direct appeal 

or post-conviction relief available to him under 

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080 (1981), on appeal Mr. L'Aquarius 

argues it would have been futile for him to pursue state remedies 

in light of previous adverse rulings by the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals and the Oklahoma Supreme Court in several cases 

involving Mr. L'Aquarius and the Oklahoma marijuana laws. We 

agree with Mr. L'Aquarius that pursuit of state remedies on his 

first two claims would have been futile in this case. However, we 

agree with the trial court that Mr. L'Aquarius' claim challenging 

his conditions of confinement is not properly before us. 

According to 28 u.s.c. § 2254(b), a federal court may not 

entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless "it appears 

that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the 

courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of 

available State corrective process or the existence of 

circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the 

rights of the prisoner." However, the exhaustion requirement is a 

matter of comity, not of jurisdiction. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 

270, 275 (1971). Its purpose is to afford the state courts, which 

have an equal responsibility with the federal courts to vindicate 

federal constitutional rights, the first opportunity to remedy a 

constitutional violation. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 

250 (1971). 

The forbearance of the federal courts is based upon the 

assumption the state remedies available to petitioners are 

adequate and effective to vindicate federal constitutional rights. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 3
Harris v. Champion, 938 F . 2d 1062, 1066 (10th Cir. 1991 ) (citing 

Shelton v . Heard, 696 F . 2d 1127, 1128 (5th Cir. 1983)). When 

those state procedures become ineffective 

foundation of the exhaustion requirement is 

federal courts may take action . Id. 

or inadequate, the 

undercut and the 

Thus, exhaustion of state remedies is not required when "the 

same evidence and issues already decided by direct review" in the 

state courts are presented in the petition for federal habeas 

corpus. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S . 443, 447 (1953); accord Picard, 

404 U.S . at 275-76. Where the highest state court has addressed 

itself to the issues raised, and there are no intervening Supreme 

Court decisions on point, nor any indication that the state court 

intends to depart from its former decisions, the exhaustion 

doctrine does not require a petitioner to present his claims in 

state court . Goodwin v. State of Okla., 923 F . 2d 156, 158 (10th 

Cir. 1991); Sarzen v. Gaughan, 489 F.2d 1076, 1082 (1st Cir. 

1973). 

We note this exception is limited to the situation in which 

the state's highest court has e xplicitly addressed the precise 

issue advanced by the petitioner. Goodwin, 923 F . 2d at 158. If 

petitioner's claims are factually or otherwise distinguishable in 

any meaningful way from those decided earlier, exhaustion of state 

remedies certainly would be a prerequisite for federal habeas 

review. Id.; see, e.g., Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d 688, 694 (10th 

Cir. 1982). 

Upon examination of the legal issues and facts presented in 

Mr. L'Aquarius' previous challenges to the marijuana laws of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 4
Oklahoma, we find that Oklahoma's highest criminal court did 

address both issues raised in Mr. L'Aquarius' first two claims in 

his habeas corpus petition. In Lewellyn v. State of Okla., 592 

P.2d 538, 539 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979), the court specifically 

rejected Mr. L'Aquarius' argument that as the head of the Holy 

American Church he was only answerable to an ecclesiastical court, 

and not to the state courts. Thus, Mr. L'Aquarius fairly 

presented to the Oklahoma courts the substance of his first 

federal claim. See Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982); 

Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d at 693-94. 

In Lewellyn v. State of Okla., 489 P.2d 511, 515 

(Okla. Crim. App. 1971), the court rejected Mr. L'Aquarius' 

contention that Oklahoma law prohibiting the possession and use of 

marijuana is inconsistent with the First Amendment guarantees of 

free exercise of religion. The court opined that the use of 

marijuana imposes a substantial risk to health and life, and that 

there was no possible justification for the use of same in the 

name of religious freedom. Id. at 516. 

In Lewellyn, 592 P.2d at 539, Mr. L'Aquarius challenged his 

conviction for distribution of marijuana, arguing the marijuana 

laws of Oklahoma are unconstitutional because they do not provide 

for use of the drug as a religious sacrament. The court held the 

State of Oklahoma has a sufficiently compelling interest to 

prohibit distribution of 

members of the public 

a 

who 

controlled 

do not 

dangerous 

receive the 

substance to 

substance in 

anticipation of using it as part of the beliefs of an established 

religion. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 5
Finally, in L'Aguarius v. Maynard, 634 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 

1981), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma relied on the rationale of 

Lewellyn, 592 P.2d at 538, in rejecting petitioner's assertion 

that refusal to permit the use of marijuana by an inmate for 

religious purposes violates the First Amendment. Thus, it appears 

the Oklahoma courts have been fairly presented the substance of 

Mr. L'Aquarius' second federal claim. See Anderson v. Harless, 

459 U.S. at 6; Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d at 693-94. 

Additionally, the intervening Supreme Court decisions on 

point further support Oklahoma's previous positions, see, e.g., 

Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 

U.S. 872 (1990) (sacramental use of peyote), rather than 

suggesting a departure therefrom. See, e.g., Sweet v. Cupp, 640 

F.2d 233, 236-37 (9th Cir. 1981) · (intervening Supreme Court 

decision changed standard of review). Finally, there is no 

indication the State of Oklahoma intends to depart from its former 

decisions. See, e.g., Wahid v . State of Okla., 716 P.2d 678 

(Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1173 (1986) (marijuana 

conviction upheld citing Lewellyn, 592 P.2d 538). 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Mr . 

effectively exhausted his state remedies. We 

decide the merits of his habeas petition. 

L'Aquarius has 

therefore must 

Rather than remand the case, which would entail further 

delay, we have decided in the interests of judicial economy to 

reach the merits ourselves. See Six (6) Mexican Workers v. 

Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1310 (9th Cir. 1990); 

Shaw v. FBI, 749 F.2d 58, 63 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Brown & Williamson 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 6
Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1173 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. 

denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984); Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. 

Co., 814 F.2d 1127, 1138 & n.11 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 486 

U.S. 1026 (1988). Cf. Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 928 F.2d 966, 

970 (10th Cir. 1991) (The matter of what questions may be 

addressed for the first time on appeal is within our discretion 

and decided on a case by case basis.). We conclude the State of 

Oklahoma's marijuana laws are consistent with the Federal 

Constitution and are properly applied to Mr. L'Aquarius, see 

Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872; and the habeas claims 

asserted by Mr. L'Aquarius have no substance. Relief was properly 

denied by the district court, albeit for the wrong reason. 

Mr. L'Aquarius' claim that his "conditions of confinement" 

violated his constitutional rights is equally without merit. This 

claim is not justiciable in habeas corpus because it does not 

pertain to the fact or length of petitioner's confinement. 

Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973); Richards v. 

Bellmon, 941 F.2d 1015, 1018 (10th Cir. 1991). Since Mr. 

L'Aquarius only challenges the conditions of his confinement, his 

claim falls outside the purview of habeas corpus. Id. 1 

1 Citation by Mr. L'Aquarius of certain language in Freiser, 

411 U.S. at 499-500, requires comments. Initially, we note the 

cited passage is dictum, and thus not binding on this court. But 

more importantly, we believe the essence of habeas corpus, as 

explained by the Supreme Court in Freiser, is a challenge to the 

very fact of confinement. A challenge to loss of good time 

credits falls within the core of habeas corpus because once a 

prisoner's conditional-release date has passed and the prisoner is 

still in confinement, his challenge is to the fact of confinement. 

The Court in Preiser left open the possibility that a petitioner 

could establish that the conditions of an otherwise constitutional 

confinement resulted in an unconstitutional confinement. We 

(Continued to next page.) 

-7-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 7
To the extent Mr. L'Aquarius has attempted to amend his 

habeas petition to challenge disciplinary actions taken by the 

Department of Corrections and resulting in Mr. L'Aquarius' loss of 

good time credits, Mr. L'Aquarius' failed to seek permission of 

the court as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242. Therefore, these new claims are not properly before this 

court. 

AFFIRMED. 

(Continued from prior page.) 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

distinguish this from the case in which a petitioner is 

challenging the actual conditions as being unconstitutional. 

While this may be a fine line, we believe it to be a valid and 

useful one. Mr. L'Aquarius' simple challenge to his "conditions 

of confinement" on its face simply does not allege an action at 

the core of habeas corpus. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 91-6351 Document: 010110240413 Date Filed: 04/09/1992 Page: 8