Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01045/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01045-0/pdf.json

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

---

F IL .. . .J ,. United States Co~l'.'tof Appea~ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ Tenth Circuit 

NELSON L. STUBBLEFIELD, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HAROLD HENSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

FEB 2 5 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1045 

(D.C. No. 89-S-1670 ) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

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 argurnen~ . 

Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in Colorado for 

burglary, sexual assault, and murder. After exhausting his state 

court remedies, he filed a petition for habeas corpus, in forrna 

... This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

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

except f or purposes o f establishing the doctrines of the law of 

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

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 1 
pauperis, with the United States District Court for the District 

of Colorado, seeking review of two evidentiary rulings and the 

overall sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. A 

magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss the 

petition, and the district court, after conducting a de novo 

review, agreed. 

On appeal, Appellant does not contest the correctness of the 

district court's finding that he did not allege a cognizable constitutional claim. Rather, he presents the innovative argument 

that the district court should have dismissed his petition without 

prejudice to re-file . We cannot agree. 

I 

First, Appellant argues that the district court erred in 

"summar[ily) dismiss[ing) his petition with prejudice," which, he 

claims, 11 serve[s) to prevent meaningful federal review of a state 

criminal trial court conviction for errors of a constitutional 

magnitude . " (Appellant Qpening Br. at 11.) He cites numerous 

cases that make clear how rarely a district court should summarily 

dismiss an action. 

Appellant's citations, while correct, are not on point. They 

concern situations where the district court has summarily dismissed a proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

(1988). The dismissal in this action was anything but summary. 

The magistrate ordered the state to show cause why a writ of 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 2 
habeas corpus should not issue, and then ordered the state to provide the record of the prior trial. After the state replied with 

a detailed brief, the magistrate issued a lengthy report, and 

Appellant was given two opportunities to present objections to 

that report. Finally, the court conducted a de novo review of the 

magistrate's suggestions, and only then dismissed the action. 

Consequently, this was a dismissal after full consideration of the 

merits, not a summary dismissal of the petition under§ 1915(d) as 

frivolous or malicious. 

Appellant also cites Phillips v . Murphy. 796 F.2d 1303, 1304 

(10th Cir. 1986), for the proposition that allegations can only be 

dismissed if they are "conclusory" or "wholly incredible." This 

also is not on point. Phillips concerned situations where the 

district court is justified in not holding a hearing on disputed 

facts. In this case, however, Appellant presented only questions 

of law. There were no facts, such as allegations of police intimidation or breached plea agreements, in dispute in this case. 

II 

Appellant next argues generally that because he is a prose 

litigant, the trial court erred in dismissing his petition with 

prejudice without giving him an opportunity to re-file to cure the 

deficiencies in his allegations. He cites Reynoldson v. 

Shillinge r, 907 F.2d 124 (10th Cir. 1990), for the proposition 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 3 
that "[p]articularly when deficiencies in a complaint are attributable to oversights likely the result of an untutored prose litigant's ignorance of special pleading requirements, dismissal of 

the complaint without prejudice is preferable . " Id. at 126 . 

Again, Reynoldson is not on point. That case involved a 

potentially curable defect in the plaintiff's allegations of 

standing. In this case, the case was not dismissed on the basis 

of any "special pleading requirements," it was dismissed on the 

merits. Further, unlike the situation in Reynoldson, there is no 

basis for concluding that Appellant would be readily able to bring 

new constitutional claims in a subsequent petition. Appellant ·has 

already cited in his first petition every error presented to the 

state courts on direct review, except a minor state sentencing 

matter. 

We remain sensitive to the confusion that a prose prisoner 

may face in attempting to write a habeas petition. The Supreme 

Court has noted that ine ff e ctive assistance of counsel can justify 

allowing a second writ of habeas corpus, Mccleskey v . Zant, 111 

S. Ct . 1454, 1470 (1991) ; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S . 478, 488 

(1986 ) , which presumably would give prose petitioners some leeway. However, in asking for a rule of law that would require district courts to dismiss all prose habeas peti tions with leave t o 

re-file, Appellant is seeking t o eliminate all pretense of final -

ity i n habeas c o rpus jurisprudenc e . This we are unwilling t o do . 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 4 
III 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue f orthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

5 

-------- -- -- ------ --- - -

Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-1045 Document: 010110176464 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 6