* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### JAN 29 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT CALVIN CRAIG, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. TOM C. MARTIN; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-6042 (D.C. No. 96-CV-1696) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BARRETT , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Robert Calvin Craig, Jr., appeals the di strict court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Craig pled gui lty to second degree murder in a North Carolina state court and was sentenced to lif e imprisonment. He served a portion of his sentence in the Great Plains Correct ional Facility in Oklahoma and was then returned to North Carolina. In his habeas petition, Craig’s sole request for relief is that he be transferred, by air instea d of by car, back to Oklahoma. The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied. The district court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the mag istrate judge in their entirety. Because the magistrate judge did not add ress Craig’s petition as one for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendumand/or ad testificandum , the district court did so and also concluded that relief should be denied. We agree with the conclusions of both the magistrate judge and the di strict court. A writ of habeas corpus is an inapposite remedy to rectify allegedly incorrect prison assignments. See Hernandez v. Garrison , 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990); see generallyOlim v. Wakinekona , 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983) (holding, in § 1983 context, that interstate prisontransfer does not implicate a due process liberty interest absent state creation of s ame). Craig’s petition asks that he be re-incarcerated in Oklahoma; a writ of habeas corpus cannot afford him such relief.-3-

To the extent Craig complained that he was incorrec tly transferred back to North Carolina while a prior habeas action was pend ing in this court in contravention of Fed. R. App. P. 23(c), Craig has f ailed to demonstrate the required prejudice from the transfer to qualify forhabeas relief. See Hammer v. Meachum , 691 F.2d 958, 961 (10th Cir. 1982). Craig’s outstanding motions are DENIED and, specifi cally, Craig’s motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of a substantial showing of the denial of a constit utional right required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), as amended by the Antiterro rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby Circuit Judge