* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This 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.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

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

### AUG 10 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY LEE BRIDGES, Petitioner - Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. No. 00-3376 (D.C. No. 00-CV-3170-RDR)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Bridges, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals fr om the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corp us brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court found that “no show cause order to respondents [was] required” and dismissed the petition. R. doc. 4, at 2. We have jurisdiction under § 2253(a) and affirm.- 2 -

While imprisoned in a Kansas state prison, Mr. Brid ges was charged with four counts of violating federal drug laws. The fe deral district court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on May 29, 1998. On June 1 or 2, the U.S. Marshals Service filed a detainer against Mr. Bridg es with the Kansas Department of Corrections. Pet. Br. ex. A. Mr. Bridges plead ed guilty to three of the four counts and received 175 months of imprisonment for the first two counts and 120 of months imprisonment for the third count, to be s erved concurrently. His sentence was affirmed. United States v. Bridges , 216 F.3d 1088, 2000 WL 796079, at *1 (10th Cir. 2000). According to Mr. B ridges, he began serving his federal sentence in the El Reno, Oklahoma federal p rison, but was then transferred back to Kansas state prison. R. doc. 1 , at 3-4, 5-6. In his petition, Mr. Bridges requested that he be “ set at liberty” because both his state and federal convictions were of no “ further cause and effect.” Id. at 9. Mr. Bridges argued that his federal convictionshould be vacated under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”); K.S .A. § 22-4401 (Kansas version), 18 U.S.C. App. 2 § 2 (federal version), b ecause he was not immediately returned to state prison after sentencing. He als o argued that he was constructively pardoned of his federal conviction when he was returned to state prison. Finally, Mr. Bridges asserted that Kansas lost custody once the federal1 Mr. Bridges also appears to have complained of Fi rst, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment violations during his incarcer ation in federal prison. R. doc. 1, at 7-8. Because these claims do not challe nge the fact or duration of custody, but rather the conditions of Mr. Bridges’ confinement, they are “properly raised under Bivens and not in habeas.” Boyce v. Ashcroft , 251 F.3d 911, 918 (10th Cir. 2001).

2Because Mr. Bridges also challenges the fact or d uration of his state sentence, R. doc. 1, at 7, his petition could be tr eated as brought by a state prisoner. If Mr. Bridges’ petition is so treated, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required. Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). Because the district court did not address whether a COA should issue, the district court is deemed to have denied the COA. Emergency General Order of October 1, 1996. To obtain a COA on appeal, Mr. Bridges is re quired to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, whether Mr. Bridges’ petition is treated as brought by a state prisoner or a federal prisoner, as explained infra , our conclusion is the same. - 3 - government obtained temporary custody. 1 The district court treated Mr. Bridges’ petition as brought by a federal prisoner. 2The court found that Mr. Bridges was returned to state prison after his federal sentence was imposed, R. doc. 4, at 1, and held that the IADA was not applicable because Mr. Bridges’ appearance in feder al court was secured by a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, not a detainer. Id. at 3. We review the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Bri dges’ § 2241 petition de novo. Patterson v. Knowles , 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998). Having reviewed Mr. Bridges’ petition, the district court’ s order, the record, and Mr. Bridges’ brief on appeal, we affirm the district co urt’s denial of Mr. Bridges’3 We decline to consider Mr. Bridges’ argument that“he should be credited

for time served since his arrival at C.C.A. on his federal case,” Pet. Br. at 4, because he failed to raise the argument before the district court. Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992). - 4 - petition. 3 The IADA is not applicable to Mr. Bridges’ claim. While the federal government was required to return Mr. Bridges to th e Kansas state prison “[a]t the earliest practicable time,” 18 U.S.C. App. 2 § 2, Art. V(e); see also K.S.A. § 22- 4401, Art. V(e), and had temporary custody of Mr. B ridges “only for the purpose of permitting prosecution on the . . . charges cont ained in [the] indictment[],” 18 U.S.C. App. Art. V(d); see also K.S.A. § 22-4401, Art. V(d), the IADA does not require that Mr. Bridges’ conviction be vacated mer ely because he allegedly served a portion of his federal sentence before bei ng transferred back to state prison. Cf. Alabama v. Bozeman , 121 S.Ct. 2079, 2082 (2001) (holding that literal language of Article IV(e) of IADA bars further criminal proceedings where prisoner is brought to receiving state for arraignm ent and returned to the sending state the following day). Mr. Bridges’ remaining two claims are meritless. T he federal government did not constructively pardon Mr. Bridges or commut e his federal sentence when he was returned to state prison. Cf. Shields v. Beto , 370 F.2d 1003, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1967) (a pre-IADA case cited by Mr. Bridges; h olding that “the extraditing of [the prisoner] to Louisiana authorities and the rel ease by Texas of the prisoner- 5 -

before expiration of his sentence constituted a wai ver of jurisdiction over [the prisoner], especially where the surrendering sovere ign (Texas) showed no interest in the return of the prisoner, either by agreement between the sovereigns, by detainer, or any other affirmative action taken by it following his release in Louisiana. A prisoner cannot be required to serve h is sentence in installments.” (citation omitted)). Nor did Kansas relinquish anyrights when it turned Mr. Bridges over to the federal government. Not surpri singly, Mr. Bridges has failed to cite any pertinent authority for either proposit ion. Accordingly, Mr. Bridges’ petition is DENIED.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge