Court Opinion

ID: 9437950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 05:04:08.008174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:14.069935
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in denial of the request for a COA and dismissal of the appeal. I write separately only to address an issue not mentioned in the Order.
As I read Mr. Tigert’s application for a COA and his original § 2241 application, one ground for his challenge to his discipline is that the rule he allegedly violated was unconstitutional in its application in this case. The discipline was based on possession by a fellow inmate of a document belonging to Mr. Tigert. The respondent acknowledges that the document is a legal document. Mr. Tigert’s § 2241 application and his pleading to this court appear to contend (1) that the fellow inmate was Mr. Tigert’s jailhouse lawyer and (2) that a prison rule cannot totally bar a jailhouse lawyer from possessing a “client’s” legal materials in his cell. The issue raised by these contentions, it seems to me, would be worthy of a COA.
Mr. Tigert, however, failed to raise this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, I do not think that the issue is properly before us and I concur in the Order.