F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 30 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICHARD DEE THOMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-4006
(D.C. No. 96-CV-575-W)
STATE OF UTAH; FRANCES M. (D. Utah)
PALACIOS; HENRY GALETKA,
Warden; UTAH STATE PRISON;
UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Richard Dee Thomas appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
§ 2254. 1 Because petitioner has not shown that the issuance of an arrest warrant
and a search warrant by a Utah court commissioner violated his federal
constitutional rights, we affirm.
In July 1993, Utah circuit court commissioner Palacios issued an arrest
warrant and a search warrant leading to petitioner’s conviction for aggravated
robbery. In August 1994, the Utah Supreme Court declared unconstitutional those
portions of section 78-3-31 of the Utah Statutes which delegated “core judicial
functions” to court commissioners, contrary to article VIII, section 8 of the Utah
Constitution. See Salt Lake City v. Ohms, 881 P.2d 844, 851 (Utah 1994).
Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing Commissioner Palacios’ acts
were unconstitutional. The Utah Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument
on the grounds that Ohms’ holding was prospective only and did not apply to the
issuance of a search warrant. This appeal is currently pending before the Utah
Supreme Court on certiorari review. Petitioner also filed a state court application
for extraordinary relief which was dismissed as premature. The Utah Supreme
Court affirmed the dismissal based on the availability of an adequate remedy in
petitioner’s direct appeal. See Appellee’s Br., Addendum E.
1
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
Petitioner brought a civil rights action against Commissioner Palacios in
the federal district court, seeking damages, an injunction, and release from
imprisonment. The district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),
and we affirmed the dismissal in Thomas v. Palacios, No. 95-4094, 1995 WL
758970 (10th Cir. Dec. 26, 1995). Petitioner filed his current federal habeas
petition in July 1996, alleging his conviction and sentence were unconstitutional
because Commissioner Palacios lacked judicial authority to issue the arrest and
search warrants. The district court denied the petition on the ground that the
Ohms decision did not invalidate petitioner’s conviction and sentence. This
appeal followed.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions in dismissing a
habeas petition. See Davis v. Executive Dir., Dep’t of Corrections, 100 F.3d
750, 756 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1703 (1997). Petitioner argues
the district court erred in failing to recognize that his conviction was
unconstitutional because the Commissioner lacked judicial authority to issue the
arrest and search warrants. Respondent argues that the dismissal may be affirmed
either because petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies or because he
failed to show the violation of a federal constitutional right.
Although it is clear that petitioner has not exhausted his claim, we choose
to affirm the district court’s decision on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2)
-3-
(“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits,
notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in
the courts of the State.”); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 135 (1987) (holding
both state and federal interests will be furthered by an affirmance on the merits,
despite the lack of exhaustion, “if it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not
raise even a colorable federal claim”).
Petitioner’s claim fails because, as we noted in Thomas v. Palacios, he has
not alleged the violation of a federal constitutional right. See 1995 WL 758970 at
**2. The federal Constitution is not violated by issuance of an arrest warrant or a
search warrant by a non-judge. See Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345,
348-50 (1972) (holding Constitution does not require arrest or search warrant to
be issued by judge, so long as issuing party is “neutral and detached, and . . .
capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or
search”). Even if delegation of such functions contravened the Utah Constitution,
therefore, it did not violate the federal Constitution, and petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the form of a writ of habeas corpus.
-4-
Petitioner’s outstanding motions, petitions, and emergency applications are
DENIED and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-