Hammer v. Meachum

2 Citing cases

  1. Leners v. Attorney Gen.

    No. 24-8008 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2024)

    And although we do not condone prison officials' violation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(a), Mr. Leners fails to show his transfer to a different facility prejudiced his ability to seek a COA. See Hammer v. Meachum, 691 F.2d 958, 961 (10th Cir. 1982).

  2. Vreeland v. Archuleta

    Civil Action No. 14-cv-02175-PAB (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2015)

    To obtain the relief Applicant seeks, he is required to show that a "transfer resulted in prejudice to the prosecution of the pending habeas action." Strachan, 151 F.3d at 1312; see also Hammer v. Meachum, 691 F.2d 958, 961 (10th Cir. 1982) ("While we do not condone such blatant violation of the appellate rules, we nevertheless deny petitioner's motion because he has not been prejudiced by the transfer."). Applicant's transfer in February 2015 was not outside the jurisdiction of this Court and nothing indicates that the transfer resulted in prejudice to the prosecution of this case.