Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03169/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03169-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL .l .. , J 

U 'ted States Co· .,.t of Appeal~ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS m 'tr--,1+ r ~:·.,.:~. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 161~Y3 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk CARROLL RICHARD OLSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID R. MCKUNE; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

STATE OF KANSAS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-3169 

(D.C . No. 92-3015-S) 

(D. Kan . ) 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* 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: 92-3169 Document: 010110212755 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 1 
Carroll Richard Olson appeals the denial of his motion for 

bail pending the outcome of his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2254. He raises the bail 

issue again in a separate petition for writ of mandamus. In his 

petition for writ of mandamus he also requests this court to 

compel the district court to grant his requests for trial 

transcripts. 

After reviewing the record and Olson's arguments we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus. Olson has not shown he has a clear 

right to bail pending the outcome of his habeas proceeding. He 

has not shown that his habeas petition raises a substantial claim 

of law or that exceptional circumstances exist. Dotson v. Clark, 

900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990). Regarding the transcript 

request, the district court has indicated its willingness to 

reconsider the transcript request once it determines whether Olson 

exhausted his state court remedies. Therefore, Olson can pursue 

his transcript request in the district court, once the court 

resolves the exhaustion issue. Under this circumstance, mandamus 

relief is unwarranted. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 

(10th Cir. 1990) (for mandamus to issue, petitioner must show he 

had no other adequate remedy available). 

Because we have already determined that Olson has not shown 

he is entitled to bail, we dismiss his appeal from the denial of 

the bail motion . 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3169 Document: 010110212755 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 2 
Olson's certificate for probable cause is GRANTED, his motion 

to proceed in f orma pauperis is GRANTED, his petition f or a writ 

of mandamus is DENIED, and the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3169 Document: 010110212755 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3169 Document: 010110212755 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 4