T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, 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 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril6,2007 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 KI NN EY FI TZGERA LD R USSELL,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 3394 v. (D . K ansas) J A M E S W . H A R R IS O N , J R ., C om m andant , U ni t ed St at es D i sci pli naryB arr acks,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 3 1 2 6 - RDR)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O' BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge pane l has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e 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 ); 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. K i nneyF. R us s el l , a mi l i t arypr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 habea s corpus pet i t i on. T heB eca us e R us s el l i s a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng under§ 2241, he nee d not 1 obt ai n a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyas a pr er equi s i t e t o thi s courtr eac hi ng the m e ri ts o f

h is a p p e a l. Mc In t o s h v . Un i t e dS ta t e s P a r o l e Co mm. , 115 F. 3d 809, 810 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). -2- dis t ri ctcou rtdis m i ssed R ussel l ’s § 2 24 1 p et i t i on w i tho ut pr ej ud i ce bec ause R u s s e ll h a d n o t e x h a u s te d h is m ilita ry re m e d ie s . See Sc hl es i ngerv. C ounci lm an , 420 U . S. 738, 758 ( 1975) . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, 1 w e affi rm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. R us s el l does notcont end he ha s exhaus t ed hi s m i l i t aryr emedi es . I ns t ead, h e c o n ten d s th e m ili tar ylo st ju risd ictio n to h o ld h im w h e n h e w a s d ish o n o ra b ly di s char ged fr om t he mi l i t ary . C oncomi t ant l y , R us s el l ar gues t hatbeca us e he i s no l ongeran ac t i ve mem berof the mi l i t ary , the mi l i t arycourt s ar e barr ed fr om re v iew in g , u n d e r th e U n ifo rm C o d e o f M ili tar yJu stic e , the p ro p rie tyo f h is inca rce rati o n . A s n o ted b ythe d istri ct co u rt , h o w ev er, bo th the S u p rem e C o u rt and thi s cour thave he l d t hata compl et e di s char ge does notdepr i ve the mi l i t aryof ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r i n d iv id u a ls s im ila rl ys itu a te d to R u s s e ll. Kahn v. A nders on , 255 U .S . 1 , 8 -9 (1 9 2 0 ); R icks v . Nick e ls , 29 5 F . 3d 11 24 , 11 31 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ). T hu s, R us s el l i s s i m pl yw r ong i n as s ert i ng he ca nnotexhaus thi s m i l i t aryr emedi es beca us e the mi l i t arycour t s no l ongerhave j ur i s di ct i on overhi m and the di s tr i ct cour tw as corr ecti n di s m i s s i ng R us s el l ’ s § 2241 pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce ba s ed o n R u ss e ll’s fa ilu re to e x h a u st.-3-

T h e o rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f K a n sa s is h e r e b y AFF I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge