Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01053/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01053-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.ea Court of Appoala 

Tenth Cirei,it 

BARRY L. WESLEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF COLORADO; 

MIKE HILL, Sheriff Sedgwick County, 

Kansas, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUC 1 91992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1053 

(D.C. No. 91-S-1946) 

(Dist. of Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Barry L. Wesley (Wesley), appearing~~, appeals form the 

district court's order denying his Motion for Reconsideration of 

the court's dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 habeas corpus 

petition. On appeal, Wesley argues that the State of Kansas and 

the State of Colorado both violated "the agreement of the 

U.C.E.A." 

* 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: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 1
Wesley was extradited from the State of Colorado to Sedgwick 

County, State of Kansas, for some sort of a probation violation. 

In Wesley's "Statement of Facts," Vol. I, Tab 3, pp. 1-2, he 

alleged that the extradition was illegal because, inter alia, he 

was never served copies of the Governor's warrant, he was denied 

the right to contest the contents of the Governor's warrant, and 

he was not properly represented or advised by legal counsel. 

Predicated thereon, Wesley alleged that there was no legal 

authority to order his return to the State of Kansas. 

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge who issued 

his Recommendations, finding that in light of Wesley's initial 

petition and his response to an order to show cause, there were no 

facts clearly setting forth Wesley's claims. The judge could not 

discern whether Wesley's claims were against the State of 

Colorado, the State of Kansas, or both states. Finally, the 

magistrate judge concluded that "what is clear is that, no matter 

what state allegedly violated Petitioner's rights, Petitioner has 

failed to exhaust his state court remedies." lg., Tab 10, p. 2. 

The court cited to 28 u.s.c. § 2254(b) and (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 

u.s. 509, 515 (1982); and Picard v. Connor 404 u.s. 270, 275-76 

(1971). ,lg. Petitioner filed vague, uncertain objections 

thereto. 

The district court entered an Order dismissing Wesley's 

Petition, finding/concluding that "This Court cannot construe 

Petitioner's vague and conclusory allegations to constitute 

violations of constitutionally protected rights. It may also be 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 2
improper, depending on the nature of his unspecified claims in the 

Petition, for this action to be in the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado." Id., Tab 15, p. 2. 

We AFFIRM substantial)-y for the reasons set forth in the 

District Court's Order of February 5, 1992, a copy of which is 

attached hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 3
FEB 111992 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Judge Daniel B. Sparr 

Civil Action No. 91-S-1946 

BARRY L WESLEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ST ATE OF KANSAS, et al., 

Respondents. 

ORDER 

FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

D:NVEn, CCLO~ADO 

FE3 5 1992 

JAMES A. MANSPEAKER 

CLERK BY 

------

THIS MA TIER comes before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 filed by Petitioner Barry Wesley. Pursuant to Rule 605 of the 

Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, this 

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Borchers. Magistrate Judge Borchers filed a 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate on December 9, 1991. The Court is required 

to make a de nova determination of those portions of the Magistrate's proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b )(1 ). 

Petitioner filed his petition pursuant to § 2241, attacking a state detainer. In 

answering the questions relevant to state detainers on the form petition, Petitioner failed to 

specify the location of the court which issued the detainer, but this appears to concern a 

county and county officers of Sedgwick County, Colorado. 

At the present time, Petitioner appears to be in the custody of a Kansas state 

correctional facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. It does not appear that Petitioner has complied 

with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, at C.R.S. § 24-60-501, et seq. It also appears 

that Petitioner initially sought to "challenge" his extradition to Kansas in the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, but his habeas corpus petition was dismissed. 

Petitioner attached a copy of the order dismissing his petition in that court to his objection 

to the Recommendation filed December 12, 1991. In an order signed October 4, 1991 by 

the Honorable Dale E. Saff els, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed as improper 

because the petitioner's quarrel is properly with Colorado, the sending state. 

1 

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 4
Magistrate Judge Borchers issued an Order to Show Cause on November 12, 1991, 

to which the Petitioner responded on November 26, 1991. In the response, Petitioner for· 

the first time provides some details regarding his extradition. Petitioner alleges that a "false 

warrant" was issued in Sedgwick County, pursuant to which Petitioner was later arrested in 

Denver. He alleges that the warrant _yiolated the double jeopardy clause. 

It appears to the Court that Petitioner was arrested for a probation violation. 

Petitioner's fact description is vague and haphazard. After describing his detention after 

arrest in Denver, Petitioner describes a hearing to set bond which he alleges was based on 

a false warrant from the state of Kansas. Petitioner also alleges that he was denied due 

process for failure to be served with a Governor's warrant, and for failing to be adequately 

represented by a Public Defender in Denver. After some further legal proceedings in the 

Denver court, the Petitioner was apparently extradited to Kansas, where he claims to have 

been sentenced for a probation violation. Petitioner also alleges that- the State of Kansas 

committed unspecified illegal acts, and that the State of Colorado acted as its agent in the 

furtherance of the commission of these acts. 

The Magistrate Judge issued his Recommendation on December, 9, 1991. Although 

the Recommendation indicated it was reviewing a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, 

the Court concurs with the substance of the Recommendation. Petitioner filed three 

separate objections to the Recommendation on December 12, 19, and 20, 1991, alleging 

essentially that the States of Colorado and Kansas entered into a conspiracy to enslave the 

Petitioner or otherwise to deprive him of civil rights. 

As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, his complaint must be construed liberally. Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Collins v. Cundy. 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1989). 

The Tenth Circuit has considered this to mean that if the court can reasonably read the 

pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite 

the plaintiffs failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, 

his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. 

That court also noted that, at the same time, 'we do not believe it is the proper function of 

the district court to assume the role of advocate for.a prose litigant." Hall v. BeHmon, 935 

F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). This Court cannot construe Petitioner's vague and 

conclusory a1legations to constitute violations of constitutionally protected rights. It may also 

be improper, depending on the nature of his unspecified claims in the Petition, for this 

action to be in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. A complaint 

should not be dismissed unless, accepting plaintiffs aHegation as true, it appears beyond 

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim for relief. Durre v. 

Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989). 

In light of the standards outlined above, this Court must DISMISS the Petition. . 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 5
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this~ day of February, 1992. 

3 

EOD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DENVER, COLORADO 

Fr:-, ··7 c. => l. 1932 

JAMES f?.MANSPEAl<ER __ __,~"""'----...;C~LERI< 

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

.JAMES R. MANSPEAKER, CLERK 

OFFICE OF THE CLEIIK 

DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

IIOOM C·"I 

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

111ae STOUT STIIEET 

DENVER. COLORADO 1oa1, 

PHONE 1aoa1 .,, .• , •• 

FTS 114-a,aa 

Case No. 91-S-1946 

I hereby certify that a copy of the ORDER signed by Judge Daniel B. Sparr and filed 

on February 5, 1992, was mailed on February 5, 1992, to the following: 

Barry L Wesley #44033 

HCF 

P. 0. Box 1568 

Hutchinson, KS 67504-1568 

Magistrate Judge Richard M. Borchers 

= Secreta ~·c\·~~ /DepuCler 

Appellate Case: 92-1053 Document: 010110285784 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 7