UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ELDON REINHOLD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MARK McKINNA, Warden and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-1559

(District of Colorado)

(D.C. No. 99-Z-1355)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This case is before the court on John Reinhold's pro se application for a certificate of appealability ("COA"). Reinhold seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his petition, Reinhold asserted that his transfer from a state-operated prison in Wyoming to a private prison in Colorado violated his rights under the United States Constitution and was at odds with Wyoming and Colorado law.1 In a case raising identical issues to those raised here, this court recently held as follows: (1) claims of state law violations relating to transfers such as those at issue here are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action and, in any event Wyoming and Colorado law specifically provide for such transfers; and (2) the Constitution does not prohibit a state from confining a convicted prisoner in a private prison rather than a state owned facility, regardless of the location of that private prison; and (3) state prisoners proceeding pursuant to § 2241 must obtain a COA in order to appeal the denial of relief by the district court. See Montez v. McKinna, No. 99-1347, slip op. at 5, 6, 11 (10th Cir. April 3, 2000).

Montez is dispositive of Reinhold's claims. Accordingly, this court DENIES Reinhold's request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal.2

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge