Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03337/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edwin Anderson
Appellant
Robert Hairity
Appellee
Ernie L. Porter
Appellee

Document Text:

.,.. 

FILED l 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE~ ited States Court ~f Appea 5 

'tenth Circu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

EDWIN ANDERSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT HAIRITY and ERNIE L. PORTER, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

AUG 2 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3337 

(D.C. No. 89-3473-S} 

(D. Kan.) 

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging respondents violated petitioner's constitutional 

rights by failing to conduct a preliminary hearing concerning the 

revocation of petitioner's parole. As relief, petitioner sought 

* 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: 89-3337 Document: 010110041659 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 1 
damages and reinstatement of parole. The district court dismissed 

petitioner's claims for reinstatement of parole, ruling these 

claims were federal habeas claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for which 

petitioner was required, but had failed, to exhaust state 

remedies. The district court dismissed without prejudice 

petitioner's claims for damages, pending the determination of 

petitioner's habeas claims in state court. 

Before this court is petitioner's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and application for a certificate of probable cause. 

To be entitled to a certificate of probable cause, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253, petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a federal right by demonstrating that the issues presented are 

debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the 

issues differently than the district court, or that the questions 

presented warrant further proceedings. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880, 893 and n.4 (1983). Petitioner has failed to make such 

a showing. 

The district court properly addressed petitioner's claims for 

reinstatement of parole as claims for habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, and petitioner's claims for damages as causes of action 

asserted pursuant to section 1983. See Freiser v. Rodriquez, 411 

U.S. 475, 486-88, 494 (1973); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974). Because petitioner did not exhaust his 

state court remedies, federal consideration of the habeas claims 

was precluded. See Freiser, 411 U.S. at 489. 

Section 1983 claims for damages, however, may go forward in 

federal court while state remedies concerning the habeas claims 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3337 Document: 010110041659 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 2 
/ 

are exhausted. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 554-55; Freiser, 411 U.S. 

at 494. Nonetheless, in the instant case, petitioner has failed 

to assert a claim for damages under section 1983 for which he 

could be entitled to relief. 

•Ordinarily,. ,,due ... p1mcess .entitles . .an .... indi.v.iduaL.facing . .parole 

revocation to a preliminary hearing to establish that probable 

cause to believe that the individual has violated his parole 

exists to warrant holding the individual in custody pending a 

formal parole revocation hearing. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 

471, 485-87 (1972). Where, as in the instant case, however, 

revocat-ion .. of ,. •pa-role is• based upon . a .. ,.,subsequent .. criminal 

conviction, probable cause is established by the existence of that 

subsequent conviction and, therefore, a preliminary hearing is not 

necessary to satisfy due process. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 

78, 86 n.7 (1976). Petitioner, therefore, has failed to make a 

sufficient showing of the denial of a federal right to be entitled 

to a certificate of probable cause. 

Petitioner's motions to supplement the record are GRANTED. 

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The 

application for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3337 Document: 010110041659 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 3