Court Opinion

ID: 9675150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:43:15.97403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.057791
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing
The petitioner seeks a rehearing herein on the ground that the Court misconstrued *232the allegations of his petition and ignored the holding of Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 101 S.Ct. 703, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981). His application for a rehearing lacks merit, and same hereby is
DENIED.
Further insight into the applicant’s claim can be gleaned from the reported decision of State v. Grizzell, 584 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979), cert. den. by Sup.Ct. of Tenn. (1979), cert. den., 444 U.S. 993, 100 S.Ct. 527, 62 L.Ed.2d 423 (1979). This Court adheres to its view that the claimed violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Agreement) is not cognizable in this habeas corpus proceeding; * Cuyler v. Adams, supra, indicates nothing to the contrary. Mr. Grizzell cannot create a federal-constitutional claim by making merely the conclusory allegation that Tennessee’s violation of the Agreement deprived him of due process and equal protection of the law.
ORDER
This Court ruled previously that the petitioner’s claimed violation by the state of Tennessee of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Alfred E. Grizzell, petitioner, v. State of Tennessee, et al., respondents, civil action no. 3:84-0063, memorandum opinion, orders and certificate of January 20, 1984. Subsequently, the Court reiterated such ruling. Id., memorandum opinion of February 9, 1984, notice of appeal filed February 28, 1984.
Once again, this Court adheres to its prior view and, therefore, the petition herein hereby is
DISMISSED summarily. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2254. For the reasons assigned previously, a certificate of probable cause will NOT issue herein.
ORDERS ON VARIOUS MOTIONS
This Court has ruled that a certificate of probable-cause will not issue herein. Order herein of July 27, 1984. Any further request therefor should be addressed to a circuit judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Rule 22(b), F.R.App.P.
Likewise, since jurisdiction of this action was transferred from this Court to the Court of Appeals on August 8, 1984, the petitioner’s application for the appointment of counsel is more appropriately addressed to the latter Court.
The motion of the petitioner for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis hereby is
GRANTED. Rule 24(a), F.R.App.P.

 Even if it were cognizable, Mr. Grizzell would be confronted with the finding of the state appellate court, State v. Grizzell, supra, that any default on the part of the state of Tennessee was attributable solely to the conduct of Mr. Grizzell in attempting to bypass the plain procedure set up by the Agreement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 432, 103 S.Ct. 843, 850[2], 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983).