Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/08/00-2127.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:55:08+00:00

Document:
In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner raises various additional state law claims. He claims that Respondents violated state law by failing to ensure LCCF met or exceeded corrections department standards. Further, Petitioner claims that the contracts violate state law because Lea County is not in the business of providing correctional jail services as contemplated by state law. Finally, Petitioner claims Respondents' conduct constitutes fraud, deceptive trade practices, and a pattern of racketeering, all in violation of state law. A magistrate judge sua sponte issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. In his response, Petitioner claimed that exhaustion was not required because "Petitioner has raised claims implicating important state interests." Petitioner further claimed that the state waived the exhaustion requirement. Finally, Petitioner claimed that he would be prejudiced by exhaustion due to undue delay and futility in the state court proceedings. After considering Petitioner's objections, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The district court subsequently denied Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability, noting that Petitioner failed to make the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). We deny Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability as well, and dismiss his appeal.
1. Because the § 2241 petition in this case is nearly identical to those filed in Seifert v. Williams, No. 00-2146 (10th Cir., filed May 1, 2000), Ayon v. Williams, No. 00-2161 (10th Cir., filed May 16, 2000), Martinez v. Williams, No. 00-2169 (10th Cir., filed May 22, 2000), Keck v. Williams, No. 00-2192 (10th Cir., filed June 16, 2000), our order and judgments in those cases are virtually identical to this one.
2. We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decisions in Montez and Rael, which we decided after the district court dismissed the petition.

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