| Keyword |
Date: Filed /
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit
In appealing from the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 suit,
Plaintiff-Appellant Alphonso Dwane Frazier raises two issues, both of which are based on
his assertion that his incarceration in the Lea County Correctional Facility
violates a New Mexico state statute governing the placement of prisoners. See
N.M. Stat. § 31-20-2. Perhaps recognizing that the violation of a state statute is
not cognizable under § 1983, Frazier argues that his incarceration in a county
facility administered by a private company, rather than a state facility, violates
his due process and equal protection rights. We can perceive no federal
constitutional component to this claim, see Rael v. Williams, 223 F.3d 1153,
1154 (10th Cir. 2000) ("[T]he fact that an inmate is transferred to, or must reside
in, a private prison, simply does not raise a federal constitutional claim . . . ."),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1083 (2001), nor the implication of any other federal
see Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999) ("A prisoner has a
legally protected interest in the conduct of his keeper, not in the keeper's
identity."). Whether the State of New Mexico is permitted to contract with a
county for the incarceration of state prisoners is purely a matter to be resolved
under state law.
We therefore AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of this suit. Frazier's
motions for reconsideration are DENIED. Payment of the filing fee is due within
ten days of the date of this order.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
*.After examining appellant's brief and the
appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
| Keyword |
Date: Filed /
Comments to: WebMaster,
ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: April 26, 2002.
HTML markup © 2002, Washburn University School of Law.