Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03316/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03316-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI L.r,jD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United S,tat~s ('.,oμrt 9f Appcalc 

rent~ C•rcur: 

MAYO 71992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROLLY O. KINNELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF KANSAS/MR. OLIVER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROLLY O. KINNELL, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROBERT ATKINS; ) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE) 

OF KANSAS, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-3315 

(D. Kan. No. 79-3023) 

No. 91-3316 

(D. Kan. No. 80-3052) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* 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 estoppe l. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3316 Document: 010110247652 Date Filed: 05/07/1992 Page: 1
assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In these companion cases, Rolly O. Kinnell, the petitionerappellant, alleges that the judgment for his 1977 conviction for 

t db t . . d 1 aggrava e a tery is voi. The district court denied his motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and declined to issue the 

requisite certificate of probable cause . For the reasons stated 

in the district court's orders of September 26, 1991 and October 

4, 1991, we hereby do the same. Accordingly, this case is 

dismissed. 

In its order below, the district court expressed frustration 

about the influx of motions attacking Kinnell's conviction, and 

the district court precluded Kinnell "from filing any further 

motions in the present action that contain the same or similar 

arguments as those set forth in any other pleadings previously 

submitted in this action. " Sept. 26, 1991 Order at 2. 

Furthermore, the district court found Kinnell's allegations on 

appeal to be "conclusional and frivolous" and his appeal to be 

"legally frivolous and . not taken in good faith." Oct . 4, 

1991 Order at 1-2. We agree. 

For the reasons set forth above and in the district court's 

orders, this appeal is DISMISSED under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

1 

also 

race 

this 

In his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Kinnell 

alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of 

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We decline to consider 

contention because it was not rai sed below. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-3316 Document: 010110247652 Date Filed: 05/07/1992 Page: 2
The mandate shall issue f orthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Davi d M. Ebe l 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-3316 Document: 010110247652 Date Filed: 05/07/1992 Page: 3