Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02304/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02304-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur R. Facteau
Appellant
Robert J. Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

.. I 

FI LED 

United Sratea Cotirt of Appeals 

T,..ndi Cir:'.:l·it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT l O 1990 

&OBERT L 1-IOECKER 

Clerk 

ARTHUR R. FACTEAU, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT J. TANSY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 89-2304 

(D.C. No. 89-660 SC) 

(D.N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, 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. 

Arthur R. Facteau appeals the district court's dismissal and 

transfer of his petition for habeas corpus based on procedural 

defects in a prison disciplinary hearing and ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Facteau contends that: (1) the consent 

decree in Duran v. Anaya, No. 77-721 (D.N.M.), does not authorize 

* 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: 89-2304 Document: 010110059550 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 1 
• f 

referral of habeas motions; and (2) the district court erred in 

finding no ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. 

We disagree with Facteau's contention that the district court 

could not refer his claims to the special master authorized to 

hear certain prisoner complaints about disciplinary hearings at 

the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility. Facteau has cited 

no authority for the proposition that habeas petitions must be 

treated differently from section 1983 actions, for which it is 

undisputed that reference is proper, see Facteau Y..!.. Sullivan, 843 

F.2d 1318 (10th Cir. 1988), and we see no reason for drawing such 

a distinction. The claims asserted by Facteau in his petition are 

similar in nature and kind to those referred to the special 

master. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err 

in referring the matter to the special master first, and 

dismissing the claim without prejudice. 

We also disagree with Facteau's assertion that the district 

court erred in considering his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim. It is axiomatic that there is no constitutional right to 

counsel in state habeas proceedings challenging prison 

disciplinary proceedings. Whitley Y..!.. Murray, 823 F.2d 55 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1034 (1987). Where there is no 

constitutional right to counsel, ineffective assistance of counsel 

where counsel was had can raise no constitutional question. 

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in 

dismissing Facteau's ineffective assistance of counsel claims with 

prejudice. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2304 Document: 010110059550 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 2 
.t 

We GRANT the certificate of probable cause and AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2304 Document: 010110059550 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 3