Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03332/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Co~rt ~f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

SEP 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CHARLIE Clerk I. KIRKLAND, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RICHARD R. THORNBURGH; 

J. MICHAEL QUINLAN; GARY L. HENMAN; 

MAYOR, WASHINGTON, D.C., 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 90-3332, 

90-3352, & 

91-3106 

(D.C. No. 90-3467-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner Charlie I. Kirkland was convicted of criminal 

violation of the District of Columbia Code and was subsequently 

transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas 

(USPL), to serve his sentence. The district court denied his 

petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241. 

Kirkland v. Thornburgh, No. 90-3467-R, 1991 WL 50290 

(unpubl.)(D. Kan. Mar. 13, 1991). Petitioner appeals pursuant to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3332 Document: 010110090119 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 1 
1 28 u.s.c. § 2253. 

In response to petitioner's notice of appeal, the district 

court found that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. Based on this finding, the court denied petitioner leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Dist. Ct. R. doc. 31. 

However, petitioner's motion for in forma pauperis status is 

hereby granted. Cases No. 90-3332 and 90-3352, both interlocutory 

appeals, are dismissed for mootness because of this court's 

disposition of petitioner's appeal on the merits herein. 

Each of the claims petitioner raises on appeal has been 

considered and was found to be lacking in merit in Blango v. 

Thornburgh, F.2d __ , No. 91-3047, 1991 WL 154940 (10th Cir. 

2 Aug. 16, 1991). The judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 Petitioner filed his prose petition for habeas corpus relief 

aided by two fellow inmates whom he described as jailhouse lawyers 

(referred to hereafter as "fellow inmates"). See Dist. Ct. R. 

doc. 26. During the pendency of petitioner's case, these fellow 

inmates filed requests for temporary restraining orders alleging 

retaliation against them by prison officials in response to their 

legal assistance to other inmates. Petitioner moved for stay of 

proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the 

fellow inmates' requests for TRO. Id. However, petitioner had 

already filed his traverse, and all that remained in his action 

was for the court to rule. Thus, petitioner's access to the 

courts as to his petition for habeas corpus was complete at the 

time he submitted his motion for stay, rendering it moot. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3332 Document: 010110090119 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 2