Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/11/00-2240.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:40:36+00:00

Document:
Floyd Blackburn, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal, without prejudice, of his habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for failure to exhaust state court remedies.(1) Mr. Blackburn challenges his incarceration in the Lea County Correctional Facility (LCCF), a privately-run prison facility in New Mexico, on the grounds that it violates both state law and his constitutional rights. Mr. Blackburn claims he is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) and Lea County, as well as the contract between Lea County and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (Wackenhut), the company that operates LCCF. He maintains his constitutional rights have been violated because Lea County and Wackenhut have breached these contracts by failing to ensure the proper classification of inmates and failing to provide a sufficient number of properly trained and adequately experienced staff. Mr. Blackburn alleges that the Defendants, Governor Gary Johnson, Secretary of Corrections Robert Perry, and the NMCD, therefore violated the terms of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20-2(G) by failing to adequately comply with NMCD standards for housing inmates at LCCF. As a result, he alleges that he has suffered unspecified, but serious and irreparable harm. Mr. Blackburn also claims that Lea County is not "in the business of providing correctional jail services to government entities." Aplts' Br. at 4. Thus, he believes the Lea County contract to provide such services violates N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17(B) and also infringes upon his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Finally, Mr. Blackburn contends that Wackenhut engaged in fraud through its contract, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-6 and that the acts of all of the defendants constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity prohibited under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-42-3(D).
consideration of Mr. Blackburn's response to the show cause order, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice. Mr. Blackburn appealed. He also seeks a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
We also held that a certificate of appealability is required for a § 2241 appeal. See id. at 866-69. To obtain a certificate of appealability, a habeas petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 18 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires a demonstration that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000). We conclude Mr. Blackburn has failed to make this showing.
Finally, to the extent Mr. Blackburn raises cognizable federal constitutional claims, the district court properly dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. "Before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court. In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to the federal courts in a habeas petition." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); accord Brown v. Shanks, 185 F.3d 1122, 1124 (10th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Blackburn's request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal.
1. This action has a somewhat unusual procedural history. The district court opened this action as a § 2254 petition, and, noting that Mr. Blackburn had already filed a § 2254 petition, transferred the petition to this court for a ruling under AEDPA on the issue of whether Mr. Blackburn had permission to file a second and successive § 2254 petition. This court, in appeal No. 00-2098, ruled that this was a § 2241 rather than a § 2254 petition, vacated the order of transfer and remanded the action to the district court for further proceedings. Meanwhile, Mr. Blackburn appealed the order of transfer to this court. That appeal, No. 00-2111, has been dismissed.

References: § 2241
 § 31
 § 33
 § 30
 § 30
 § 2253
 § 2241
 § 2253
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2241
 § 2254