T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 (e ff. D e c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT D O U G L A S W . T H O M P S O N ,

Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 3237 v . ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 3 5 8 - RDR) D U K E TE RR ELL , W a r de n, U SPL e a v e n wo r th ; a n d DANA D . T H O M PSO N , A ct i ng C hai r m an, M i s s our i B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e, (D . K a n .)

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. OR DER * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng Pet i t i oner ’ s br i ef a nd the r ecor d on appea l , thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. Pet i t i onerfi l ed thi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on i n Sept ember2005, s eeki ng r e l i e f f r o m a d e t a i n e rl o d g e d a g a i n s th i m b yth e S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i . Atth e t i me-2-

the pet i t i on w as fi l ed, Pet i t i onerw as s ervi ng a tw enty - y earfede r al s ent ence atthe U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryi n L eave nw or th, K ans as . B efor e the di s tr i ctcourthad m ade a rul i ng, how ever , Pet i t i oner ’ s fede r al pr i s on t erm expi r ed, and he w as tr a n s fe rr e d to M is s o u ri c u s to d y . Pet i t i onerfi r s tchal l enged the M i s s our i det ai neri n 1988. I n hi s 1988 h ab ea s p eti ti o n , h e a rgu ed that h e w as e n ti tl ed to co m p let e re lease fro m M issou ri cus t odybeca us e the St at e had a ct ed vi ndi ct i vel yi n i m pr i s oni ng hi m and i n fai l i ng to c o n d u c t a tim e ly p a ro le re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g ; th a t M o . A n n . S ta t. § 5 5 8 . 0 1 1 . 4 (1)(c) sh o u ld h av e b ee n ap p li ed to m an d ate h is r elea se a fter five y ea rs of par ol e; and thathe des erved par ol e cr edi tforthe tw o y ear s he s erved i n pr i s on d u e to th e S ta te ’s u n la w f u l r e f u s a l to g ra n t p a ro le . See Thomps on v. Mo. B d. of P a ro le , 929 F. 2d 396, 399- 401 ( 8th C i r . 1991) . T he Ei ghth C i r cui tr ever s ed the d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h a b e a s re lief, h o ld in g th a t P e tit io n e r d e se rv e d p a ro le c re d it fo r t h e tw o y e a rs h e w a s u n la w f u lly in c a rc e ra te d . Id. at401. A ft er cr edi t i ng the tw o y ear s of pr i s on t i m e t ow ar d hi s par ol e, the ci r cui tcourtfound thatPet i t i onerhad s erved fi ve y ear s on par ol e and, cons equent l y , w as el i gi bl e for p a ro le d is c h a rg e c o n s id e ra tio n . Id. a t 4 0 1 -0 2 . T h e c irc u it co u rt sp e c ifica lly n o ted , h o w e v e r, th a t it s o rd e r d id n o t en tit le P e tit io n e r to d isc h a rg e f ro m p a ro le butonl yr equi r ed the M i s s our i par ol e boar d t o cons i derh im fo r p a ro le d is c h a rg e . Id. at401 n. 12. T he courthel d thatPet i t i oner ’ s othercl ai m s , w hi ch as s ert ed v a rio u s re a so n s w h yh e w a s e n tit led to c o m p lete re lea se , lac k e d m e rit.T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t co n sid e r P e tit io n e r’s a lleg a tio n , rais e d in h is 1 tr aver s e, thatthe M i s s our i par ol e boar d r efus ed t o hol d a par ol e di s char ge hea r i ng as o rde red b ythe E igh th C ir cu it . P eti ti o n er n o w info rm s u s tha t M issou ri c o n d u c te d a p a ro le h e a ri n g in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 6 , w h ic h m a k e s th is a lle g a tio n m o o t. See Shakurv. Wi l ey , 156 Fed. A pp’ x 137 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) (ag ree ing w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion that “a n yclaim that [th e p eti ti o n er] d id n o t re c e iv e [ a p a ro le e lig ib ili ty ] h e a rin g is m o o t, as h e re c e iv e d a p a ro le cons i der at i on hear i ng i n 2002”) . A s t o Pet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on thatthe Sept ember 2006 par ol e hea r i ng w as conduct ed unl aw ful l yand/ ori m pr oper l y , w e do not co n side r th is al lega ti o n , w h ich w as ra ised fo r th e fir st t im e in P eti ti o n er’s s uppl ement al br i efs . T hi s cl ai m i s notpr oper l ybefor e us beca us e— due t o the fa ct th at th e h ea ri n g h ad n o t y et oc cu rred at th e ti m e o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g — it w a s n o t r a is e d b e lo w . See Walkerv. Mather ( In re Walker

) , 959 F. 2d 8 9 4 , 8 9 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). -3- In th e in sta n t p e tit io n , P e tit io n e r a g a in a rg u e s th a t h e is e n tit led to p a ro le di s char ge bas ed ei theron the M i s s our i s t atut e oron the vi ndi ct i ve and unl aw ful a c tio n s o f

M iss o u ri o fficia ls in im p riso n in g h im a n d u n law f u llyd e n y in g h im p a ro le d isc h a rg e . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e p e tit io n a s a n a b u se o f th e w rit. 1 Pet i t i onerm us tobt ai n a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n or dert o chal l enge the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is h a b e a s p e titio n . See Mont ezv. McK i nna , 208 F. 3d 862, 867 n. 6 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed hi s habea s pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyw i l l i s s ue onl yi f he can s how thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e both “w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght ” and “ w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 52 9 U. S. 473, 484 ( 2000) . W e ar e al l ow ed and e ncour aged t o r es ol ve the pr ocedur al i s s ues befo re address i ng the co nst i tuti on al qu est i on s. S e e id . a t 4 8 5 .-4-

A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e not e thatPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tW ar den D uke T err el l ar e now m oot . T he onl yr el i ef Pet i t i onercoul d have obt ai ned fr om W a rd e n T e rre ll w a s a n inju n c tio n to p re v e n t h im f ro m re lea sin g P e tit io n e r in to M i s s our i ' s cus t ody . N ow thatthi s eventhas occurr ed, ther e i s no effectual r el i ef h e c o u ld o b ta in f

ro m W a rd e n T e rr e ll. See Church of Sci entol ogy of

C al . v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 0 6 U .S . 9 , 1 2 (1 9 9 2 ); Fr edet t e v. Hem i ngw ay , 65 Fed. A pp’ x 929, 931 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( unpubl i s hed) ( pr i s oner ’ s pet i t i on fori nj unct i ve r el i ef, s eeki ng pr event i on of hi s tr ans ferfr om fede r al t o s t at e cus t odyundera s t at e det ai ner , w as m o o t du e to th e fac t th at he h ad alread yb ee n tr an sfe rred , ren d ering the c o u rt unabl e t o gr antthe r el i ef r eques t ed) . B eca us e ther e i s no r eas onabl e expe ct at i on thatPet i t i onerw i l l be s ubj ect ed t o thi s s ame act i on agai n, thi s i s notthe type of c la im to w h ic h a n e x c e p tio n to th e m o o tn e s s d o c tr in e a p p lie s . See Mur phy v. Hunt , 4 5 5 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 2 (1 9 8 2 ); Fre d e tte , 65 Fed. A pp’ x at931. A s t o Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s thathe i s ent i t l ed t o par ol e di s char ge bas ed on the st at e st atute and/ or on the pri or vi nd i ct i ve acti on s of M i ssouri st at e offi ci al s, thes e cl ai m s have be en cons i der ed on the mer i t s and r es ol ved aga i ns tPet i t i oner b yo th e r fe d e ra l co u rts, in c lu d in g th e E ig h th C irc u it. W e n o te th a t th e E ig h th C i r cui tdi d nothol d thatPet i t i onerw as ent i t l ed t o par ol e di s char ge, butonl ythat he w as ent i t l ed t o par ol e di s char ge cons i der at i on; thi s pr oces s w as m et . A habea s courtgener al l yw i l l notr eac h the mer i t s of a s ucce s s i ve cl ai m , w hi ch r ai s es gr ounds i dent i cal t o gr ounds r ai s ed and de ci ded on the mer i t s i n a pr evi ous-5-

p e titio n . Sanders v. Uni t ed Stat es , 373 U . S. 1, 15 ( 1963) . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatnothi ng i n the r ecor d s uppor t s a fi ndi ng of ca us e and pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce, and thus thatther e i s no r eas on the d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld n o t h a v e d is m is s e d th e c la im s a s a n a b u s e o f th e w ri t. See G e o rg e v . P e rr ill , 6 2 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). A ft err evi ew i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s fi l i ngs and the r ecor d on appea l , w e conc l ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur i s tw oul d fi nd thatPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s s houl d nothave be en di s m i s s ed on pr ocedur al gr ounds . T her efor e, w e DE NY P eti ti o n er’s req u est fo r a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to exp edit e i s DI S M I S S ED a s m o o t.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge