Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06364/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06364-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CLINTON RAY JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

F-I LED 

United Scates C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 2 G 1SSO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6364 

) 

DAN M. REYNOLDS; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma; ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1515-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before us on a request for a certificate of 

probable cause and to be allowed to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauper is. 

Clinton Ray Johnson, a prisoner in the state court system in 

Oklahoma, is attempting to appeal the denial of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. In the petition he challenges his 

conviction of forcible oral sodomy and attempted rape, making as 

his principal argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction 

because it prosecuted him by an information which did not contain 

* 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: 89-6364 Document: 01019967101 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
all of the elements of the offense nor informed him of the nature 

of the accusations. 

The state court conviction occurred in January 1989 and 

Johnson has filed a direct appeal that is still pending before the 

Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the appellees' 

brief having been filed in November 1989. 

On the basis of these facts the district court dismissed for 

failure to exhaust state remedies and denied a certificate of 

probable cause. We agree with the district court's analysis set 

out in its Opinion and Order filed October 11, 1989. 28 u.s.c. 

S 2254(b) states explicitly that a federal court may not grant a 

writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 

a judgment of a state court "unless it appears that the applicant 

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state, 

or there is no state corrective process or circumstances indicate 

that such process is ineffective to protect the prisoner's 

rights." This applies if the petitioner has the right under the 

law of the state to raise "by any available procedure, the 

question presented." Id. S 2254(c). See also Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U. S. 509, 510 (1982). Clearly petitioner's application in federal 

court is premature. we therefore deny petitioner's application 

for a certificate of probable cause and deny his motion for leave 

to appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Jupge 

Appellate Case: 89-6364 Document: 01019967101 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2