Case Name: Andy RAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; Robert J. Perry, Secretary of Corrections; New Mexico Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-01
Citations: 32 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 01-2205
Parties: Andy RAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; Robert J. Perry, Secretary of Corrections; New Mexico Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 525–527

Head Matter:
Andy RAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; Robert J. Perry, Secretary of Corrections; New Mexico Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2205.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 1, 2002.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Andy Rael, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Mr. Rael brought this action after we dismissed without prejudice similar claims he raised in a habeas petition because the claims were more appropriately classified as a "conditions of confinement" action under § 1983. See Rael v. Williams, 223 F.3d 1153, 1154 (10th Cir.2000). On appeal, he argues that New Mexico is without authority under state law to house inmates in a correctional facility in Lea County; that he has been deprived of due process and equal protection because the State has used its prison contracts as a means to comply with limits on overcrowding imposed by a consent decree. Mr. Rael is surely wrong that the state cannot house him in Lea County. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20-2(G) & 33-1-17(8X2). His misunderstanding is the result of applying Atty. Gen. Op. 87-53 to the statutes as they now exist' — the statutes have been amended. Mr. Rael has no federally protected right in a place of incarceration. We affirm the district court's judgment substantially for the reasons contained in its memorandum opinion and order. I R. doc. 8.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.