A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi 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 tt he det erm i nat i on of 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### Ju ly11,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S T A N L E Y D . P E A R S O N , S R .,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. R . W I L E Y , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1500 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 0 1 9 3 1 - Z L W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

S tan ley D a le P e a rso n , S r. ap p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is appl i cat i on forhabea s - corpus r el i ef. W e conc l ude thatt he courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on and r emand t he ca s e w i th di r ect i ons t o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on w i thout p reju d ic e to h is re a s s e rt in g it in th e p ro p e r fo ru m .-2-

W h ile M r. P e a rso n w a s in c a rc e ra ted a t th e B u re a u o f P riso n s’ fa c ili tyin F loren ce , C o lorad o , h e w as c h arg ed w ith an d co n v ict ed o f th e d isci p li n ary i nfr act i on of bl ackmai l , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the l os s of good- t i m e cr edi t s and di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on. A ft erhe w as tr ans ferr ed t o a pr i s on i n T err a H aut e, I n d i a n a , h e fi l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra wr i to f h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2241 i n the fe der al di s tr i ctcourti n C ol or ado, cl ai m i ng thathi s cons t i tut i onal rig h ts h a d b e e n v io late d d u rin g th e d isc ip lin a ryp ro c e e d in g . T h e c o u rt d e n ied h is appl i cat i on on the mer i t s and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. T h is c o u rt h a s a n in d e p e n d e n t d u ty to e x a m in e its o w n ju ri s d ic tio n . Lopez v . B e h le s (In r e A m . R e a d y Mix , In c .) , 1 4 F . 3 d 1 4 9 7 , 1 4 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). In thi s ci r cui ta cha l l enge t o a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng r es ul t i ng i n the for fei tur e of g o o d -t im e c re d its s h o u ld b e ra is e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 ra th e r t h a n § 2 2 5 5 . B r ow n v. Sm ith , 828 F. 2d 1493, 1495 ( 10th C i r . 1987) . “A pet i t i on under. . . § 2241 a t t a c k s th e e x e c u t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e r a th e rth a n i t s v a l i d i ty and m us tbe f i l ed i n the dis tr i ctw her e the pr is oneris conf i ned . ” B radsha w v. Story , 86 F. 3d 164, 166 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee als o Haugh v. B ooker , 210 F. 3d 1147, 1149 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . A tt he t i m e M r . Pear s on fi l ed hi s pet i t i on he w as confi ned in In d ian a . T h e re fo re , the fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt in C o lo ra d o lac k e d ju risd ictio n to c o n s id e r h is p e titio n . Un itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 8 0 3 F . 2 d 1 0 9 5 , 1 0 9 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ).-3-

T he “j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct s thatar i s e w hen a s ui ti s fi l ed i n the w r ong fe d e ra l d is tr ic t m a yb e c u re d b ytr a n s fe r u n d e r t h e fe d e ra l tr a n s fe r s ta tu te , 28 U . S. C . § 1631, w hi ch r equi r es a courtt o tr ans fers uch an a ct i on i f the tr ans fer i s i n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce. ” Haugh , 210 F. 3d at1150 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “N onethel es s , . . . a courti s author i zed [ fi r s t ] t o cons i derthe con sequen ces of a tr ansfer byt aking a p eek at the m eri t s t o av oid r ai si ng fal se ho pes and w ast i ng j ud i ci al res ou rces that w ou l d resul tfrom transferri ng a case w hi ch i s cl ear l ydoom ed. ” Id. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). O urqui ck r evi ew of the mer i t s and the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derconvi nces us thatM r . Pear s on’ s r eques tforr el i ef i s doom ed, and ther efor e the ca s e s houl d not b e tra n sfe rre d . In ste a d , the c a se is R E M A N D E D to th e d istric t co u rt w ith di r ect i ons t o di s m i s s hi s pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o hi s r eas s er t i ng i ti n the proper forum . W e D E N Y his requestt o p roceed in form a pau peri s.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge