Stallings v. Franco
576 F. App'x 820
10th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Rick Stallings, a New Mexico prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising three claims.
- District court denied relief; the court held IADA violations are not automatically habeas-worthy.
- Stallings argues IADA violation, illegal transfer from Colorado to New Mexico, and denial of pro se status.
- The district court found no federal habeas relief for IADA or transfer claims and that Stallings did not clearly demand self-representation.
- Stallings sought a COA to appeal; this court denies COA and dismisses the appeal.
- Timeline: Stallings was extradited to NM for a pretrial conference, escaped, captured in CO, pled guilty in 2012, and was sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IADA violation entitles habeas relief? | Stallings argues Colorado violated IADA rights. | IADA rights are statutory, not fundamental; collateral relief requires special circumstances. | No habeas relief; no fundamental IADA defect shown. |
| Transfer/ Parole agreement violation constitutional effect? | Parole implied rights were violated by transfer timing. | Parole provisions may be violated, but not a federal constitutional claim warranting relief. | No constitutional violation entitling habeas relief. |
| Right to self-representation denied? | He repeatedly asked to proceed pro se. | No unequivocal request for self-representation; hybrid/conditional requests rejected. | No plain error; no right to hybrid representation; no failure to allow self-representation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. Wyo. Dep’t of Corr. State Penitentiary Warden, 34 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 1994) (IADA collateral attack requires special circumstances; not a default habeas issue)
- Callwood v. United States, 66 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 1995) (requiring unequivocal demand for self-representation; no right to hybrid representation)
- Treff v. United States, 924 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 1991) (unambiguous demand required for self-representation; timing matters)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (clear standard for Certificate of Appealability; debatable or wrong decision required)
- Davis v. Workman, 695 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2012) (federal habeas review limited to federal-law claims; state-law violations may be non-constitutional)