UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ AUSTIN RAY,
Pe titioner - Appellant,

v. WARDEN DEBORAH DENHAM,
Re spondent - Appellee. No. 15-1252 (D.C. No. 1:15- CV-01012-LTB) (D. Colo.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________ _______________ Before BACHARACH , O’BRIEN , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ Mr. Austin Ray appeals from the district cour t’s dismissal of his habeas application. We affirm. In April 2014, Mr. Ray was indicted in the District of Colorado and taken into federal cust ody. He sought dismissal of the criminal case, arguing that

* The Court has determin ed that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decide d the appeal based on the briefs. This order and judgme nt does not constitute bi nding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But our order and judgment may be ci ted for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 18, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2  federal authorities deprived him due process and violated the Interstate Agreemen t on Detainers by removing him from a Colorado pre-parole conditional superv ision program and

 the district court lacked pers onal jurisdiction over him. Mr. Ray also filed a habeas petition, making the same ar guments. Because the same arguments were pending in th e criminal case, the district court dismissed the habeas action. Mr. Ray appeals, and we affirm. In appropriate circumstances, federal courts can consider habeas applications filed by pre-trial detainees. See Walck v. Edmondson , 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007) (considering a double je opardy challenge). But “[a]n attempt to dismiss an indictme nt or otherwise prevent a prosecution is normally not attainab le by way of pretrial habeas corpus.” Capps v. Sullivan , 13 F.3d 350, 354 (10th Cir. 1993 ) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Even when habeas relief is otherwise available, the petitioner must first exha ust other available remedies. See, e.g. , Dry v. CFR Court of Indian Offenses for the Choctaw Nation , 168 F.3d 1207, 1209 (10th Cir. 1999) (tribal remedies); Capps , 13 F.3d at 353-54 & n.2 (state remedies); Williams v. O’Brien , 792 F.2d 986, 987 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (adminis trative remedies). In unpublished opinions, we have sometimes applie d the exhaustion rule to deny habeas relief to federal detain ees who filed habeas applications while their federal criminal cases were pending. See Thompson v. Robinson , 565 F. App’x 738, 739 (10th Cir. 2014)3 (unpublished); Hall v. Pratt , 97 F. App’x 246, 247 -48 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished); Chandler v. Pratt , 96 F. App’x 661, 662 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished). We re gard these opinions as pers uasive because they follow logically from our precedents requir ing exhaustion of other available remedies. Under these opinions, Mr. Ra y had to exhaust his present claims by raising them in the criminal case. See Thompson , 565 F. App’x at 739; Hall , 97 F. App’x at 248; Chandler , 96 F. App’x at 662. The district court did not err in dismissing Mr. Ray’s habeas application. Thus, we affirm. Mr . Ray’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees is granted.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge