Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06042/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06042-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JACK L. MARTIN, ) 

) Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI L.~ D 

Unit.cd States Court of Appeab 

Tenth c:rcui~ 

MAY 111992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 92-6042 

) 

STEPHEN W. KAISER, Warden; ATTORNEY) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) Respondents-Appellees. ) 

(D . C. No. CIV-91-1716-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal . See Fed. R. App . P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Martin, a state inmate, appeals pro se the denial of 

habeas corpus relief. 

* 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: 92-6042 Document: 010110247670 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Martin filed a prose petition for habeas corpus relief 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2254. Therein he alleged he had been convicted 

of six counts of solicitation of murder. This petition, while 

filled with legal maxims, is difficult to decipher. It appears 

three grounds for relief are cited: (1) the state court's denial 

of postconviction relief was erroneous;

1 ( 2) ineffective 

assistance of counsel in pursuing postconviction relief; and (3) 

prejudice resulting from the actions of the trial court in 

allowing police officers to sit at the prosecuting attorney's 

table. 

The state filed a response, asserting this petition to be Mr. 

Martin's second federal habeas corpus action challenging the six 

convictions and claiming this petition to be an abuse of the writ. 

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who reviewed 

the procedural history, including a prior determination by this 

court, see Martin v. Kaiser, 907 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 1990). The 

magistrate judge concluded this action was an abuse of the writ as 

Mr. Martin failed to show cause and prejudice. In the 

alternative, Mr. Martin failed to show a miscarriage of justice 

would result from the failure to entertain his petition. 

Although untimely filed, the district court considered Mr. 

Martin's response to the magistrate judge's report. Nevertheless, 

1 

Like the district court, we construe ground one as a request 

to review the remainder of Mr . Martin's alleged constitutional 

violations. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6042 Document: 010110247670 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 2
the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations 

and denied relief. 

Mr. Martin appeals prose and, in a voluminous brief filled 

with legal citations, apparently asserts as major points: (1) the 

Oklahoma court decisions were wrong; and (2) he was denied 

effective assistance of trial counsel. We grant Mr. Martin a 

certificate of probable cause and permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis . 

Mr. Martin misperceives applicable law. In his first federal 

habeas corpus petition, which was also prose, he raised four 

issues and relief was denied. See Martin, 907 F.2d at 933. 

Before the federal courts will even consider a second habeas 

corpus petition Mr. Martin must show both cause for failing to 

raise the new issues and actual prejudice resulting therefrom. In 

the absence of a showing of cause, new claims will be considered 

only if Mr . Martin can demonstrate a miscarriage of justice would 

result from the court's failure to consider the new issues. 

Mccleskey v. Zant, U.S. , 111 s. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). 

Mr. Martin has failed to make the required showing. 

We first note this 

specifically found 

assistance of counsel. 

court, in Mr. Martin's first appeal, 

Mr. Martin was not denied ineffective 

Martin, 907 F.2d at 936. This point was 

raised, addressed, and decided adversely to Mr. Martin. It cannot 

now be raised again. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6042 Document: 010110247670 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 3
• 

We next note Mr. Martin has the burden to conduct a 

reasonable and diligent investigation so all alleged errors can be 

heard the first time. This is a harsh but necessary rule. All 

litigation must eventually come to an end. The result of this law 

is that the first federal habeas corpus petition must be complete 

and thorough. A subsequent change in law is usually not 

sufficient to successfully pursue a second federal habeas corpus; 

nor is ignorance of the law; nor is state court error. Mr. Martin 

had the burden of showing some factor external to the defense 

caused him not to raise the issue and this was prejudicial to his 

defense. Mr. Martin failed to meet his burden. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6042 Document: 010110247670 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 4