Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01060/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01060-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN MILTON MANN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FIL~ D 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 

Tenth C:~ it 

MAY 13 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . " 

v . ) No. 9 1-1060 

GALE A. NORTON, Colorado State 

Attorney General; COLORADO COURT 

OF APPEALS; AUREL M. KELLEY; CHARLES D. 

PIERCE; DONALD P. SMITH; ALAN L. 

STERNBERG; DALE P. TURSI; KAREN S. 

METZGER; JOHN A. CRISWELL; LEONARD P . PLANK; CLAUS J. HUME; RAYMOND DEAN 

JONES; PETER H. NEY; HAROLD D. REED; 

JOSE D.L. MARQUEZ; JANICE B. DAVIDSON; 

EDWIN G. RULAND; FRANK N. DUBOFSKY; 

CHRISTOPHER J. MUNCH, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) (D.C. Nos. 91-F-45 & 

) 90-F-972) 

) (D. Colo . ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

* 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: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 1
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner John Milton Mann appeals from the district court's 

denial of his self-described petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

In actuality, the district court's order addressed two different 

actions, one of which involved a civil rights complaint filed 

initially under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (No. 90-F-972). The second 

action sought habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2254 (No. 

91-F-45). The actions were consolidated after Mr. Mann filed an 

amended pleading in the civil rights action replacing the 

complaint with a petition for habeas relief. The causes of action 

in the two pleadings, and the relief sought, are the same. After 

reviewing the briefs and appellate record, we affirm. 

These actions stem from Mr. Mann's 1986 state court 

conviction for contempt of court. In October 1986, Mr. Mann was 

sentenced to a term of six months in county jail for the contempt, 

with all but one month suspended. He began serving the one-month 

term on or about October 10, 1986. On October 27, while he was 

still in custody, Mr. Mann submitted a petition for habeas corpus 

relief to the federal district court in Colorado. 1 With the 

petition, he submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The 

petition was designated as case No. 86-X-353 but was not filed 

pending disposition of the request to proceed without prepayment 

of fees. 

1 It is clear from the record that Mr. Mann had not exhausted 

his state remedies prior to the time he attempted to submit the 

first petition for filing. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 2
Mr. Mann was released from custody in November 1986. In 

December, the federal court denied him in forma pauperis status in 

No . 86-X-353 and informed him that the petition would not be filed 

unless he paid a $5.00 filing fee. He did not do so . As a 

consequence, the action was not filed. Four years later, on 

December 10, 1990, Mr. Mann tendered five dollars to the district 

court clerk, claiming it was the filing fee for case No. 86-X-353. 

He also submitted a document entitled "First Amended Petition." 

The court identified the filing as a new case, No . 91-F-45. 

The civil rights action was originally filed on June 1, 1990. 

It sought an order from the district court requiring the Colorado 

Court of Appeals to allow Mr. Mann to appeal his contempt 

conviction with court-appointed counsel. Although Mr. Mann was 

appointed counsel while appealing the contempt in state court, his 

attorney was allowed to withdraw. On a limited remand, the state 

trial court determined Mr. Mann's inability to retain counsel was 

his own doing. Eventually, Mr. Mann exhausted all state remedies, 

apparently without counsel. On December 10, 1990, Mr. Mann filed 

a "First Amended Complaint" in federal case No. 90-F-972 which 

converted the civil rights action to a habeas petition. The 

petition mirrored the one filed in No. 91-F-45. Admitting that 

the two petitions contained the same cause of action, Mr. Mann 

filed a motion to consolidate No. 90-F-972 with No. 91-F-45 . 

Thus, at the time the district court considered these matters, it 

had before it two cases styled as habeas corpus actions. 

In order to come within the umbrella of the habeas corpus 

statutes, an applicant must be "in custody" at the time the 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 3
petition is filed. Carafas v. Lavallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 

This is a statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2 Habeas 

actions cannot be filed after the expiration of the sentence under 

attack. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Mr. Mann argues that even 

though the habeas petition in No. 91-F-45 was submitted in 

December of 1990, its filing date for purposes of evaluating the 

custody requirement should be October 26, 1986, the date the 

district court received the original pleading in No. 86-X-353. He 

maintains that the filing fee revived the original submission. In 

support, he relies on local district court Rule 400A. 

That rule states, in pertinent part, 

When pleadings are received for filing and the required 

filing fee is not included with the pleadings, the clerk 

shall note "received" thereon and notify counsel or the 

parties that the pleadings are being held and will not 

be filed until the required filing fee is received or 

order allowing the party to proceed in forma pauperis is 

obtained. When the filing fee or order is received, the 

clerk shall file the pleadings nunc pro tune as of the 

date received. 

Colo. Dist. Ct. R. 400A. Mr. Mann argues that even though his 

sentence had fully expired at the time he paid the fee, he 

satisfied the custody requirement because, pursuant to the rule, 

the filing date must be the date the documents were received. On 

that date in 1986 he was in custody. We disagree. 

2 It is important to distinguish this requirement from issues 

concerning whether a habeas action is moot. See D.S.A. v. Circuit 

Court Branch 1, 942 F.2d 1143, 1145 n.2 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. 

denied, 112 S. Ct. 1196 (1992). The custody requirement is 

statutory, and constitutes a jurisdictional threshold to filing a 

habeas action. See id.; Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 4
Local Rule 400A does not provide habeas petitioners an 

indefinite period in which to pay a filing fee. The 

interpretation which Mr. Mann suggests would result in a tortured 

construction of the rule's language, and would disrupt the ability 

of the clerk's office to maintain the court docket with any 

efficiency. Mr. Mann's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was 

3 denied and he chose, for whatever reason, not to pay the fee . 

The local court rule was not designed to give Mr. Mann 

substantive rights which he would not otherwise possess. We agree 

with the district court that the petition which Mr. Mann submitted 

in 1990 constituted a new filing. He was not in custody at the 

time it was filed. Thus, the dismissal was appropriate. See 

Weaver, 925 F.2d at 1098-99 (petitioner failed to satisfy custody 

requirement where, although pleadings were received by clerk while 

he was incarcerated, they were not filed until after release); 

Anderson v. Worden, 744 F. Supp. 1042, 1043-44 ( D. Kan. 

1990)(petitioner was not "in custody" for purposes of habeas 

review where, although first petition was filed while 

incarcerated, it was dismissed for failure to exhaust and second 

petition was filed after expiration of sentence). Because the 

petition in No. 90-F-45 was likewise filed after the expiration of 

Mr. Mann's sentence, it is subject to dismissal for the same 

reason. 

3 As the Eighth Circuit has noted, "the opportunity to proceed 

in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right." Weaver v. Pung, 

925 F.2d 1097, 1099 n.4 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 99 

(1991). 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 5
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1060 Document: 010110249154 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 6