Hawes v. Pacheco, No. 18-8013 (10th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ GREGORY M. HAWES, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL PACHECO, Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, No. 18-8013 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00052-ABJ) (D. Wyo.) Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before EID, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Gregory M. Hawes filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his Wyoming conviction for kidnaping. The district court dismissed one claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust and denied the other claims on the merits. This court granted a limited certificate of appealability concerning this hybrid disposition of a mixed § 2254 application and ordered the parties to address the proper remedy. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Both parties have responded, and Mr. Hawes has replied to the government’s response. Mr. Hawes suggests that, notwithstanding the hybrid disposition, this court should take jurisdiction and rule on the merits of his claims, including the unexhausted claim. But in these circumstances, we cannot consider the merits of the habeas claims. In both Wood v. McCollum, 833 F.3d 1272, 1274 (10th Cir. 2016), and Moore v. Schoeman, 288 F.3d 1231, 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 2002), we held that when a district court improperly dismisses unexhausted claims while ruling on the merits of exhausted claims, we must reverse and remand for the district court to decide the application in accordance with the precedents regarding mixed habeas applications. Recognizing that we are bound by Wood and Moore, the government acknowledges that the district court’s decision is improper and concedes that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings. As we did in Wood, we reverse the district court’s hybrid disposition of the § 2254 application and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and dispose of Mr. Hawes’ petition in a manner consistent with Moore. Mr. Hawes’ motions to supplement the record dated August 31, 2018, and September 7, 2018, are denied, and his other pending motions are denied as moot. Entered for the Court Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
