T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he 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 per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 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 ** panel 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 u 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. 

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

### Ju ly25,2007 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 D A RY L F. FI ELD S,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 6052 v . (W .D . o f O k la .) S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No. CV - 0 6 - 1 2 6 5 - HE)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D ary l Fi el ds , appea l i ng pro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) to chal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus . A ppl y i ng t hi s C i r cui t ’ s “fi r m w ai ver ” rul e, w e affi r m t he di s tr i ct c o u rt’s o rd e r a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l.-2- I . Backg r ound D ary l Fi el ds chal l enges hi s convi ct i on forPoss es s i on of D rug Par aphernal i a, ent er ed pur s uantt o a gui l typl ea. H e cl ai m s t hathe w as deni ed effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and w as s ubj ect ed t o an i l l egal s ear ch and s ei zur e. Fi el ds i s curr ent l yi n cus t odyatt he Eni d C orr ect i onal C ent eri n O kl ahoma, s ervi ng t i m e fora convi ct i on unr el at ed t o the one c hal l enged i n the pr es ent peti t i on . H e adm i t s that hi s onlysent ence for the ch al l eng ed co nv i ct i on w as a fi ne of $300 i m pos ed i n A ugus tof 2005. Fi el ds di d notappea l t he convi ct i on, but so u g h t p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief th ro u g h th e O k lah o m a c o u rts. T h e O k lah o m a c o u rts den i ed rel i ef, w i t h the O klahom a C ou rtof C ri m i nal A pp eal s decl i ning t o ex erci se ju risd ictio n o v e r th e p o st-c o n v ictio n a p p e a l b e c a u se F ield s h a d n o t co m p lied w ith t he appe l l at e court ’ s pr ocedur al rul es governi ng the t i m el yfi l i ng of an a ppeal i n a p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g . T he magi s t r at e j udge hea r i ng Fi el ds ’ s pet i t i on found i n hi s R eportand Re c o mme n d a t i o n t h a tt h e fe d e r a l c o u r t s l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a rt h e c l a i m, beca us e Fi el ds w as noti n cus t odyas r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 2554( a) . T he m a g istra te ju d g e th e n n o tifie d F ield s th a t fa ilu re to o bjec t in a tim e lym a n n e r to t he R epor tand R ecomm endat i on w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appel l at e r evi ew of both t he fac tual and l egal i s s ues cont ai ned ther ei n. I n a l et t erdat ed J anuary4, 2007, Fi el ds cont act ed the cl erk fort he W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma t o expl ai n thathe l acke d acc es s t o l egal m at er i al s and document s att he Eni d C orr ect i onal C ent erW e not e thatw e have al s o cons i der ed the for ce a nd pl aus i bi l i tyof a pro 1 s e litig a n t’ s e x p la n a tio n fo r n o n -c o m p lia n c e . Mor al es - Fer nandez , 418 F. 3d at (c o n tin u e d ...) -3- a n d re q u e s te d a s s is ta n c e in o b ta in in g “ th e p ro p e r d o c u m e n ts .” D o c u m e n t 9 . Si nce Fi el ds ’ s l et t erdi d noti dent i fythe mat er i al s ordocument s s ought , the di s t r i ctcourtcons t rued the l et t eras a r eques tforan ext ens i on of t i m e t o r es pond t o t he R eportand R ecomm endat i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the r eques tand ext ended the fi l i ng deadl i ne t o February1, 2007. Fi el ds di d notfi l e hi s obj ect i on byt he February1 deadl i ne. II . A n a ly sis W e have adopt ed a f

i r m w ai verrul e s uch thata partyfai l i ng t o obj ecti n a t i m el ym annert o a magi s t r at e j udge’ s fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons w ai ves a p p e a l o n th e le g a l a n d fa c tu a l is s u e s p re s e n te d in th e c a s e . Mor al es - Fer nandez v . I NS , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e o n lyex ce p ti o n s to the rule a re “w hen ( 1) a pro se l i t i ganthas notbeen i nform ed of the t i m e per i od forobj ect i ng and the cons equenc es of fa i l i ng t o obj ect , orw hen ( 2) t he ‘ i nt er es t s of j us t i ce’ r equi r e r evi ew . ” Id . T h e first e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p lyh e re a s th e m a g istra te j udge cl ear l yw arned Fi el ds of the cons equenc es of fa i l i ng t o t i m el yobj ectand t he r el evantdeadl i ne. F iel d s ass erts th e se co n d ex ce p ti o n w h ere b ythe in terests of justi ce req u ir e u s t o r e v i e w h i s c l a i m. O uri nt er es t s of j us t i ce s t andar d i ncorpor at es a pl ai n err or re v ie w , w h e re w e re v ie w in e s s e n c e fo r a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . Id . at1122. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 1 1 2 0 . In th is c a se , F ield s p ro v id e s a lette r e x p lain in g w h yh e c o u ld n o t co m p ly w ith the o ri g inal Jan u aryd ea d li n e fo r objecti n g to the m ag istrate jud g e’s R ep o rt and R ecomm endat i on, butoffe r s no expl anat i on forhi s fai l ur e t o m eetthe ext ended February1 deadl i ne. -4- “ P lain e rro r o c c u rs w h e n th e re is (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a ffe c ts su b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u slya ffe c ts th e fa irn e ss , inte g rityo r p u b lic r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at11 22 –2 3. F i el ds do es not m eetthese el em ents . In th e c ase b efo re u s, the m ag istrate jud g e a n d d istri ct co u rtd en ied F iel d s’s pet i t i on beca us e he ha d notes t abl i s hed thathe w as i n cus t odyas r equi r ed by § 2254. T he “i n cus t ody ” r equi r ementm us tbe s at i s fi ed forhabea s corpus ju ri s d ic tio n . C ar t erv. Uni t ed Stat es , 7 3 3 F .2 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), c e rt. deni ed , 469 U . S. 1161 ( 1985) . “A pet i t i onerneed nots how actual , phy s i cal cus t odyt o obt ai n r el i ef. ” D r y v. CFR C our tof

Indi an O

f f ens es f orthe C hoctaw Nat i on , 1 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 0 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). B u t co u rts h a v e g e n e ra llyh e ld t hata per s on s ent ence d t o onl ya fi ne orr es t i tut i on i s not“i n cus t ody . ” B ar r y v. B erg en C o u n ty P ro b a ti o n D ep ’t , 1 2 8 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 6 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 2 2 U .S . 1 1 3 6 (1 9 9 8 ), Uni t ed Stat es v. Keane , 8 5 2 F . 2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 4 9 0 U .S . 1 0 8 4 (1 9 8 9 ); D uval l on v. F l or i da , 6 9 1 F .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 5 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ), see also P helps v. B arba ra , N o . 9 7 -33 8 5 , (10 th C ir . O ct. 7 , 1 9 9 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 525 U . S. 1146 ( 1999) . B eca us e Fi el ds s uffe r ed onl ya cr i m i nal fi ne, he is no ti n cu st od yas r equ i red bythe fe deral hab eas st atutes .-5-

A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterr , l etal one pl ai nl yerr , i n fi ndi ng a l ack of habea s j ur i s di ct i on. I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons above w e D E N Y Fi el ds ’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and D I SM I SS thi s a pp e a l . I n a dd i t i on , w e D EN Y hi s a pp l i c a t i on t o p r oc e e d I FP.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge