Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/12/00-2239.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:51:35+00:00

Document:
Tim Hall, appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to challenge the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While incarcerated in a private correctional facility in New Mexico, Hall filed the instant petition in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging his transfer to, and incarceration in, a private facility. Construing his pro-se petition liberally, as we must under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), Hall claims his incarceration in a private facility violates various state laws as well as his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.(1) Because we conclude that Hall has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," we decline to grant COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
1. Because the § 2241 petition in this case is nearly identical to those filed in Archuleta v. Williams, No. 00-2216 (10th Cir., filed July 24, 2000), and Davis v. Williams, No. 00-2250 (10th Cir., filed August 4, 2000), our orders and judgments in those cases are virtually identical to that in the instant case.
2. On appeal, petitioner claims he is barred from recourse to the state courts due to his failure to timely file an application for state post-conviction relief and therefore that requiring him to exhaust state remedies is futile. However, he did not raise that claim below in response to the magistrate judge's order to show cause, and the claim thus has been waived. See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992). Petitioner raises no facts that would mandate departing from our ordinary rules of waiver. Whether petitioner's claims will ultimately be barred in the state courts, and whether his claims are procedurally barred for purposes of habeas review, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991), are issues as to which the resolution is uncertain from the record before us. We leave resolution of those issues in the first instance to the state courts and the district court below.
3. We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Rael, which we decided after the district court dismissed the petition.
4. See Hogan v. Zavaras, 93 F.3d 711, 712 (10th Cir. 1996) (denying COA and dismissing an appeal of the district court's denial of a § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust).

References: § 2253
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2253
 § 2241
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2241