FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 26, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JERRY TICE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO; 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants, 

and 

KAY AUBREY; PROBATION AND 

PAROLE, Director, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 04-2060 

District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CIV 02-1579 RB/LFG) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). This case is 

therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and 

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and 

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 1
In 1997, Jerry Tice pleaded guilty to state charges of aggravated battery and 

aggravated burglary in New Mexico. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Tice to a total 

of nine years' imprisonment. Part of the judgment provided that: 

FIVE (5) YEARS of the sentence shall be suspended if and only if the 

Defendant is accepted into and completes a TWO (2) YEAR residential 

treatment program, in which case he shall be placed on probation for the 

balance of the sentence. R. Doc. 18, Ex.2. 

In custody, Mr. Tice sought acceptance into various treatment centers but 

was denied. On March 22, 1999, the Parole Board authorized parole for Mr. Tice, 

effective August 6, 1999. The Certificate of Parole stated that Mr. Tice was to be 

paroled to Artesia, New Mexico, and he was ordered to report to Officer Leann 

Martin of the Artesia Police Department. Officer Martin approved of the plan, 

but noted in a memo to the Chairman of the Parole Board that, according to the 

condition of judgment, if Mr. Tice were paroled without having already been 

accepted into a treatment program, he would be in violation of his probation upon 

release. Officer Martin therefore recommended that, if paroled, Mr. Tice be 

allowed 30-60 days to find a treatment program and enter into it. 

Mr. Tice sought to have the judgment amended to give him time upon his 

release to find a treatment program. His motion was denied. Mr. Tice was 

released on parole August 6, 1999. When Mr. Tice reported to his probation 

officer two days later, he was arrested for failure to pay previous traffic violation 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 2
fines and violating the terms of his release. Mr. Tice was released after this 

arrest, apparently due to his efforts to find a treatment program and his family's 

willingness to supervise him. Nevertheless, the probation officer filed a 

probation violation report and Mr. Tice was again arrested on August 16, 1999, 

after the sentencing judge issued a bench warrant for probation violation. 

Following a probation revocation hearing before the same judge who 

originally sentenced Mr. Tice, probation was revoked. During the course of the 

hearing, the judge indicated that he had wanted Mr. Tice to parole directly into a 

treatment center due to concerns about the danger Mr. Tice might pose to the 

community. The judge told Mr. Tice, "[Y]ou're one of the more dangerous 

individuals I've had in my court ... I specifically wrote the judgment and 

sentence [ so that] you aren't going anywhere except directly to an [Residential 

Treatment Center]." R. Doc. 18, Ex. 14, at 10; R&R, at 7. The judge also said 

that he "had no clue why the Department of Corrections released you." Id. 

Mr. Tice appealed his conviction for probation violation and the New 

Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the order revoking probation on the grounds 

that he did not receive a fair warning that immediate entry into a treatment 

program was a condition of his probation and that his violation was not wilful. 

The court noted, however, that the remedy was not to release Mr. Tice since he 

should not have been released in the first place. The court merely "erase[ d] from 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 3
[the] Defendant's record any order stating that he violated the conditions of 

probation ... '' R. Doc. 18, Ex. 15, at 6. Mr. Tice was accepted into a treatment 

center five months later and paroled directly to that center. 

Mr. Tice filed a pro se prisoner civil rights appeal pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 

1983 against the State of New Mexico ("State"), the New Mexico Department of 

Corrections ("DOC"), the Director of the Probation and Parole Board, and Kay 

Aubrey, his probation officer. After dismissing the State and DOC from the case, 

the district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, 

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. Mr. Tice 

appeals that ruling and asks this court to reverse the district court. We review a 

district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Casper v. Comm 'r 

of Internal Revenue, 805 F.2d 902, 904 (10th Cir. 1986). Generally, issues not 

raised before the district court will not be considered on appeal. Trierweiler v. 

Croxton and Trench Holding Corp., 90 F .3d 1523, 153 8 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Mr. Tice is proceeding pro se, and we accordingly construe his brief 

liberally. Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998). Mr. Tice has 

stretched our capacity to construe pro se briefs liberally to its fullest extent. 

However, we believe that Mr. Tice is making substantially the same argument that 

he made to the district court, i.e., that his due process rights were violated when 

his probation was revoked and that because of the faulty revocation, he was 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 4
improperly incarcerated for five months. Mr. Tice's allegation that he was 

illegally imprisoned for the 5 months between his arrest on August 16, 1999, and 

his entry into a treatment center is without support in the record. Although the 

New Mexico Court of Appeals overturned the order revoking probation, the 

mistake that court sought to correct was not the revocation of probation but the 

release from prison in the first place. Mr. Tice's argument that he was illegally in 

prison during those five months is also undermined by Mr. Tice' s statements at 

the probation revocation hearing that "he had tried to prevent his release since he 

had not met the necessary conditions." R. Doc. 18, Ex. 13, at 3-6, Ex. 14, at 2-3, 

11-12. Therefore, the revocation of probation did not result in additional prison 

time for Mr. Tice; rather, his mistaken release allowed him a few days of 

unauthorized freedom which the state trial court magnanimously counted toward 

his sentence anyway. 

Mr. Tice raises many arguments on appeal that were not raised to the 

district court. "Certainly there are circumstances in which a federal appellate 

court is justified in resolving an issue not passed on below, as where the proper 

resolution is beyond any doubt or where injustice might otherwise result." 

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). However, we find no reason to consider Mr. Tice's newlyraised issues. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 5
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New 

Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Mr. Tice's motion for additional time to file a supplemental reply brief is 

DENIED. Mr. Tice's motion to correct the record is GRANTED. Mr. Tice's 

motion to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED. He is reminded that he is 

obligated to continue making partial payments toward the balance of his assessed 

fees and costs until they are paid in full. All other motions are DENIED. 

-6-

Entered for the Court, 

Michael W. McConnell 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-2060 Document: 010110642468 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 6