Slip Opinions Home
Page | Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |    Download WordPerfect version (11647 bytes)     Download RTF version (7512 bytes)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT


ALPHONSO DWANE FRAZIER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY JOHNSON, Governor, State of New Mexico; ROBERT J. PERRY, Secretary of Corrections; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; and NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-2323

(D.C. No. CIV-01-367-MV)

(D. New Mexico)


ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)


Before TACHA, Chief Judge, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.


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 right, 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

Circuit Judge


FOOTNOTES
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.


Slip Opinions Home
Page | Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |    Download WordPerfect version (11647 bytes)     Download RTF version (7512 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: April 26, 2002.
HTML markup © 2002, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/04/01-2323.htm.