Certificate of Appealability Required for Habeas Challenges to Interstate Custody Transfers under 18 U.S.C. § 3623

Introduction

In Hanson v. Quick, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressed whether a death‐row inmate, John Fitzgerald Hanson, may appeal the denial of his habeas petition and related claims challenging his transfer from federal to state custody under 18 U.S.C. § 3623 without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (COA). Mr. Hanson, serving a life sentence in federal prison and a death sentence imposed by an Oklahoma state court, filed a § 2241 petition and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief after the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transferred him to Oklahoma custody in 2025. The district court denied relief, and Mr. Hanson sought a COA in the Tenth Circuit. The panel denied the COA, holding that every claim challenging the legality of his confinement requires a COA, and that Mr. Hanson failed to make the requisite “substantial showing” of a constitutional violation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously held that:

Any appeal of a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)—including challenges to state‐custody transfers under 18 U.S.C. § 3623—requires a COA.
Mr. Hanson’s statutory‐violation claims under § 3623, no matter how purportedly labeled “injunctive relief,” actually challenge the legality of his confinement and therefore qualify as habeas claims.
He has not made the necessary showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (a) his transfer decision was ultra vires, (b) the district court applied the wrong standard, or (c) Oklahoma’s delay in retrieving him from federal custody constituted a due‐process waiver of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the panel denied the COA and dismissed the appeal, and it denied as moot his request for a stay of execution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) – Establishes the COA requirement for appeals in habeas proceedings.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) – Defines the “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” standard for a COA.
Miller‐El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) – Confirms the COA requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) – Clarifies what constitutes the “merits of a habeas proceeding.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) – Holds that challenges to “the very fact or duration” of physical imprisonment are exclusively cognizable in habeas, not § 1983.
United States v. Springer, 875 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 2017) – Advises courts to look to the relief sought, not labels, to determine if a claim is a habeas petition.
United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2006) – Confirms a COA cannot issue for purely statutory claims.
Tran v. Trustees, 355 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2004) – Explains that abandoned issues in the district court need not be considered on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

1. COA as Jurisdictional Prerequisite. The court emphasized that 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) makes a COA mandatory before a prisoner may appeal a final order in a state‐custody habeas proceeding. Citing Miller‐El, the panel stressed that no appellate adjudication may proceed without it.

2. Characterizing the Claims. Hanson labeled two of his claims as “injunctive relief” (an ultra vires § 3623 violation and a due‐process jurisdictional waiver). The panel, following Springer and Preiser, looked to the relief sought—immediate release from state custody—to conclude these claims attack the “fact or duration” of his incarceration and thus qualify as habeas claims.

3. Statutory vs. Constitutional Claims. To obtain a COA, Hanson had to show a debatably valid constitutional violation. His challenges to the BOP’s compliance with the statutory criteria in § 3623, and to the district court’s review standard, asserted only statutory errors—insufficient for § 2253(c)(2). His due‐process theory, though touching on the Fourteenth Amendment, lacked any precedent or persuasive authority suggesting long inaction by a state is tantamount to a waiver of jurisdiction or a liberty‐interest violation.

Impact

Hanson v. Quick clarifies and reaffirms several important points in federal post-conviction practice:

Prisoners challenging interstate custody transfers under 18 U.S.C. § 3623 must obtain a COA for any appeal, regardless of how claims are styled.
District courts must treat any claim seeking release from confinement—no matter how labeled—as a habeas petition requiring constitutional scrutiny under § 2253.
Statutory errors alone do not satisfy the “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” test for a COA: habeas relief demands a constitutional violation.
The decision discourages collateral challenges to BOP transfer decisions absent a clear constitutional claim, funneling disputes into the statutory administrative process or mandamus in the D.C. Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Appealability (COA): A limited authorization from a court of appeals, required for a prisoner to bring up an appeal after a habeas denial. The petitioner must show reasonable jurists could debate whether a constitutional violation occurred.
Habeas Corpus (§ 2241 & § 2253): A legal procedure allowing prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention. Section 2241 is the statute used to file the petition; § 2253 governs appeals and COA requirements.
Ultra Vires: Latin for “beyond the powers.” A claim that an official acted outside the authority granted by statute.
Preiser Rule: When a prisoner seeks release or a speedier release, the exclusive remedy is habeas corpus, not a civil rights suit under § 1983 or similar statutes.

Conclusion

Hanson v. Quick establishes that any challenge to the “fact or duration” of a prisoner’s confinement—whether labeled as habeas, statutory or injunctive—requires a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and that pure statutory errors cannot satisfy the constitutional showing required for a COA. The decision reinforces the procedural gatekeeping role of the COA and confines collateral review of federal‐to‐state custody transfers to avenues recognizing constitutional questions. As a result, future litigants must carefully frame and support constitutional arguments if they aspire to appellate review of detention challenges.