Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02044/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02044-0/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 

MAR "'6 1Qg 

llOBER.T L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAMS. ALLOWAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER; and the ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 87-2044 

( D. C. No. 8 7-7 4) 

( D. Wyo. ) 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and ANDERSON, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing petitioner-appellant's application for habeas corpus 

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges, and the 

* 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: 87-2044 Document: 01019966051 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 1 
record shows, that he was convicted, on pleas of guilty, of 

several serious offenses. Subsequently, he challenged his 

conviction in the state trial courts and by a petition for writ of 

mandamus in the Wyoming Supreme Court. The issues raised were 

that the conviction was the product of an involuntary guilty plea 

and denial of the effective assistance of counsel. 

The district court dismissed because petitioner had failed to 

raise those issues on direct appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court 

and, as a consequence, the§ 2254 proceeding must be dismissed for 

failure to exhaust available state court remedies. 

Prior to the district court's order of dismissal, petitioner 

lodged a memorandum which addressed his claim that further resort 

to the state courts would be futile. He asserted that he had 

filed a state habeas action in 1984, but that the state had never 

acted on it. There is no indication that the district court 

considered the alleged failure of the state to decide petitioner's 

habeas action as constituting futility. See,~, Tramel v. 

State of Idaho, 459 F.2d 57, 58 (10th Cir. 1972) (inordinate and 

inexcusable delay in state court process may become denial of due 

process; district court must take jurisdiction and determine cause 

of delay); Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157, 158 (10th Cir. 1966) 

(without knowing facts giving rise to delay by state in deciding 

appeal, trial court could not properly conclude petitioner's state 

remedies were adequate and effective). 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2044 Document: 01019966051 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 2 
Accordingly, judgment of the United States District Court for 

the District of Wyoming is VACATED, and the matter is remanded for 

further proceedings. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2044 Document: 01019966051 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 3