United States v. Joe Contreras, 149 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joe Contreras, 149 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2020–2021 · 2 courts · …has failed to cite any tenth circuit authority that requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion. ⚠ not in text
90 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Guzman v. New Mexico State Department of Cultural Affairs (nmd, 2021-04-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Guzman v. New Mexico State Department of Cultural Affairs
D.N.M. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
has failed to cite any tenth circuit authority that requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Institute for Justice v. Laster
W.D. Okla. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
has failed to cite any tenth circuit authority that requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Vreeland v. Huss
D. Colo. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
an evidentiary hearing, however, is unnecessary to resolve these legal issues.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mahadevan v. Bikkina
N.D. Okla. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Carbajal v. Warner, 561 F. App’x 759, 764 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished)5; Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191, at *3 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished); see also Shaw v. AAA Eng’g & Drafting, Inc., 213 F.3d 538, 545 (10th Cir. 2000) (“An evidentiary hearing, however, was unnecessary to resolve these legal issues.”); Inst. for Just. v. Laster, No. CIV-19-858-D, 2020 WL 4018290 , at *1 (W.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) V.V. Orozco
D.N.M. · 2020 · confidence medium
See (Doc. 14) at 21-22 (stating the Court should make its decision based on a review of the evidence submitted by the parties); (Doc. 17) (stating counsel does not intend to call Petitioner to testify at the hearing); Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191, at *3 (10th Cir.1998) (explaining courts are not required to hold evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fair American Insurance & Reinsurance Co. v. Stewart
N.D. Okla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Co. v. Gold, 149 F.3d 1191, at *7 (10th-Cir. 1998) (holding that similar exclusion applied because doctor's “other alleged acts of professional malfeasance were inextricably intertwined with the sexual activity”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quigley v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance
E.D. Cal. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co. v. Gold, 149 F.3d 1191 at *5 (10th Cir.1998) (table) (exclusion for “injury that results from any kind of sexual contact or activity ...” where policy specifically indicates it will be applied “whether or not ... the sexual contact or activity was accidental, intentional or negligent”); Barringer v. Rausch, 900 So.2d 232, 235 (La.App. 2 Cir.2005) (same); S.J.A.J. v. First Things First, 235 Wis.2d 275 , 2000 WL 463309 , *2 (Wis.App.2000) (concerning a policy that “does not apply ... to any Claims made or Suits brought against any Insured alleg *1222 ing, in whole or in part, sexua…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shawn Parker v. Donald Kelchner, Superintendent Attorney General of Pennsylvania
3rd Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Besides serving to minimize friction between our federal and state systems of justice, the exhaustion requirement has the salutary practical effect of enhancing the familiarity of state courts with federal constitutional issues.” 329 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). *62 “The exhaustion requirement is not one to be overlooked lightly.” Rutherford v. Neet, 149 F.3d 1191, 1191 (10th Cir.1998) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Kelchner
3rd Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
“The exhaustion requirement is not one to be overlooked lightly.” Rutherford v. Neet, 149 F.3d 1191, 1191 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Buckner v. Social Security Administration
E.D. Okla. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nunn v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1191 , 1998 WL 321189, *2 (10th Cir. 1998)(Even assuming that claimant's objections to some of the jobs identified by the vocational expert are well taken, if 3 Cleaner III, DOT 919.687.014, R2; Dishwasher, DOT 318.687-010, R2; Laboratory Equipment Cleaner, DOT 381.687-022, R2; Day Worker, DOT 301.687-014, R2; Industrial Sweeper/Cleaner, DOT 389.683-010, R1; Marker, DOT 209.587-034, R2; Routing Clerk, DOT 222.687-022, R2; Collator Operator, DOT 208.685-010, R2. claimant can perform some of the jobs identified, the ALJ can rely on those jobs to find claimant not disa…
discussed Cited "see" Mission Air Support Inc v. KSNL Aero LLC
W.D. Okla. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1998) (finding that a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to resolving a preliminary injunction motion); Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1286 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that “a district court does not abuse its discretion in deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing when no such request is ever made.”). 2 This December 10 order contains a detailed recitation of the relevant facts and the standard that apply when a litigant seeks a preliminary injunction.
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
D. Kan. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191 (Table), 1998 WL 339465, at *3 (10th Cir. June 10, 1998) (nothing in Tenth Circuit authority requires evidentiary hearing before grant or denial of motion for preliminary injunction); see also Carbajal v. Warner, 561 F. App’x 759, 764 (10th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff did not show that district court abused discretion in denying injunctive relief without hearing). -2- 2022 is OVERRULED.
discussed Cited "see" Beaumont v. Social Security Administration
E.D. Okla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nunn v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1191 , 1998 WL 321189, *2 (10th Cir. 1998)(Even assuming that claimant's objections to some of the jobs identified by the vocational expert are well taken, if claimant can perform some of the jobs identified, the ALJ can rely on those jobs to find claimant not disabled).
discussed Cited "see" R.R. v. Orozco
D.N.M. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191, at *3 (10th Cir.1998) (explaining courts are not required to hold evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion).
discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. Grisham
D.N.M. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Charles Alan Wright Et Al., 11A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2949 (“[P]reliminary injunctions are denied without a hearing, despite a request therefor by the movant, when the written evidence shows the lack of a right to relief so clearly that receiving further evidence would be manifestly pointless.”); see Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191 , 1998 WL 339465, at *3 (10th Cir.1998) (recognizing that whether to hold evidentiary hearing prior to the disposition of a preliminary injunction motion was within the discretion of the district court); see also Carbajal v. Warner,…
discussed Cited "see" Carbajal v. Warner
10th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191 , 1998 WL 339465, at *3 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Plaintiff] has failed to cite any Tenth Circuit authority that requires a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying a preliminary injunction motion....
examined Cited "see" Abreu v. NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES (3×)
D.N.M. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Theis v. Denver Bd. of Water Comm'rs, 149 F.3d 1191, at *2 (10th Cir.1998) (Table)(recognizing that several courts have held that a property interest in continued employment may not survive a bona fide RIF, but not deciding whether it would recognize a reorganization exception to procedural due-process requirements in cases of bona fide RIFs, because "even if Theis' assumed property interest in his employment survived elimination of his position, he was granted all the pre-termination process that was due."); Wash. Teachers' Union *1227 Local No. 6, Am.
examined Cited "see" Abreu v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department (3×)
D.N.M. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Theis v. Denver Bd. of Water Comm’rs, 149 F.3d 1191, at *2 (10th Cir.1998) (Table)(recognizing that several courts have held that a property interest in continued employment may not survive a bona fide RIF, but not deciding whether it would recognize a reorganization exception to procedural due-process requirements in cases of bona fide RIFs, because “even if Theis’ assumed property interest in his employment survived elimination of his position, he was granted all the pre-termination process that was due.”); Wash. Teachers’ Union Local No. 6, Am.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Buentello v. Boebert
D. Colo. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Carbajal v. Warner, 561 F. App’x 759, 764 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Eaves, 149 F.3d 1191 , 1998 WL 339465, at *3 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table deci- sion) (no 10th Cir. authority requires court to hold evidentiary hearing prior to granting or denying preliminary injunction); Local Civ.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Joe Contreras
97-8098.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jun 15, 1998.
149 F.3d 1191
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #45,742 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. Colorado (1) · D. New Mexico (1) · W.D. Oklahoma (1)

149 F.3d 1191

98 CJ C.A.R. 3165

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joe CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-8098.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 15, 1998.

1

Before BALDOCK, EBEL and MURPHY, JJ.

2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

EBEL.

3

In 1994, Joe Contreras ("Contreras") pled guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. (ROA 1 ). On April 28, 1997, Contreras filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary as a result of the government's breach of the plea agreement. (ROA 1 & 7 ). Contreras contended that the plea agreement provided that his federal sentence would run concurrently with any state sentence he might receive in connection with the conduct at issue in the federal proceedings. (ROA 1 & 7 ). Contreras argued that the government violated the plea agreement because Federal Bureau of Prison authorities failed to credit his sentence for over two and one-half years of time served from the date of his arrest under both state and federal custody. (ROA 1 & 7 ). As a result, he claimed that his sentence had been extended improperly by 30 months to 150 months' imprisonment.

4

The district court concluded that Contreras' claim that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to give him credit for time served could not be heard until after he exhausted his administrative remedies, i.e. the Bureau of Prisons' final determination of its position with regard to his sentence. (ROA 6 ). Consequently, the district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Contreras' claim and denied his motion. (ROA 6 ). Contreras filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that because he was challenging the voluntariness of his plea agreement and not his sentence, he need not exhaust administrative remedies. (ROA 7 ). In the alternative, advising the court that he was in the process of exhausting his administrative remedies and was only awaiting a final decision from the Bureau of Prisons, Contreras asked the district court to vacate its order dismissing his § 2255 motion and to stay the proceedings until after the administrative process had run its course. (ROA 7 ). Contreras noted that he brought his § 2255 motion before he had completed the administrative process only because of the one-year limitation on claims filed under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). In addition, because his § 2255 motion was filed after the effective date of AEDPA, dismissal of his claim outright without staying the proceedings would prevent him from filing a second § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1997) (disallowing successive motions except in limited circumstances). The district court denied Contreras' motion to reconsider on July 24, 1997. (ROA 10 ). Contreras now appeals.[1]

5

On August 25, 1997, the Bureau of Prisons issued a final decision in Contreras' administrative appeal of his sentence denying his claim for a sentence reduction. (Appellant Brief, Exhibit C ). As a result, Contreras has exhausted his administrative remedies. Given Contreras' good faith efforts to comply with AEDPA and exhaust his administrative remedies, the district court should have stayed the proceedings in this case until after the administrative process had come to an end. Thus, we find that the district court erred by denying Contreras' motion to reconsider. As a result, we need not address the question of whether Contreras had to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his § 2255 motion. We also grant Contreras' motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

6

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

7

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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. 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

1

Although the notice of appeal was not filed with the district court until more than 30 days after entry of the order of dismissal, Contreras delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials before the 30-day deadline as provided by Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)