* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 19 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES F. KARLS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICK HUDSON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 99-6006 (D.C. No. 98-CV-1287-W) (Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Pro se appellant James F. Karls challenges the dism issal of his habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On appeal, K arls asserts that the district court erred denying him appointment of counsel, and in rejecting his argument that he is in custody in violation of the Constitut ion of the United States because his transfer from prison in Wisconsin to a privatel y-operated prison in Oklahoma deprived both states of jurisdiction over him. Kar ls also moves to proceed in- 2 -

forma pauperis. Because Karls cannot demonstrate anonfrivolous argument in support of his legal position, we deny the motion t o proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm the district court’s dismissal of his pe tition. Karls, a convicted prisoner under Wisconsin law, so ught relief from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that Wisco nsin, by transferring him to the custody of the North Fork Correctional Facility(NFCF) in Saye, Oklahoma, had unconstitutionally surrendered him to an entitylacking jurisdiction. Following a magistrate’s report and recommendation and Karls’ objections thereto, the district court dismissed Karls’ petiti on with respect to claims under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On app eal, Karls argues that he advances claims only under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Karls’ arguments that somehow no state has jurisdic tion over him are without merit. Karls provides us no authority for the proposition that the interstate transfer of a prisoner to the custody of a privately managed prison, operated pursuant to state law, violates a constitu tional or legal right. His argument that Wisconsin law prohibits the out-of-st ate punishment of persons who commit crimes in Wisconsin misstates the relevant statute. See Wis. Stat. § 939.03(1) (providing circumstances under which “[a] person is subject to prosecution and punishment under the law of this st ate”). Nor has he offered any nonfrivolous argument or authority for the contenti on that the district court erred1 Additionally, Karls was transferred, after filing this appeal, from NFCF to a

facility in Tennessee. This court previously denied his ensuing motion to be returned to custody in Oklahoma. Thus, to the extent his petition seeks relief on the grounds that his custody in Oklahoma is unlawful and/or unconstitutional, it is dismissed as moot. - 3 - in concluding he is not a maximum security level in mate, and thus his custody in Oklahoma did not violate Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 563. 2(a), which provides for the imprisonment in private facilities of “minimum or medium security level inmates.” 1 Karls also contests the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We have stated that “there is no const itutional right to counsel beyond the appeal of a criminal conviction, and that generally appointment of counsel in a [habeas] proceeding is left to the [di strict] court’s discretion.” Swazo v. Wyoming Dept. of Corrections State Peniten tiary Warden , 23 F.3d 332, 333 (10th Cir. 1994). Karls has not shown entitlem ent to an evidentiary hearing that would to entitle him to appointment of counsel . See id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karls’ moti on for appointment of counsel. Karls has not paid the $100.00 required docket fee in this court, and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To prevail on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a petitioner must demonstrate “a fi nancial inability to pay the required fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonf rivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal .” McIntosh v. United States- 4 -

Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting De Bardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991)). Karls fails to raise such a nonfrivolous argument. Karls has also submitted a document, titled Motion for Declaratory Judgment, in which he apparently seeks to strike Re spondent Hudson’s Answer Brief for certain alleged minor formatting errors. This motion is without merit and is DISMISSED

. AFFIRMED . Leave to proceed in forma pauperis DENIED

. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge