Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-05191/USCOURTS-ca10-93-05191-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY JEROME HARRIS, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL; ) 

STEVE HARGETT; STEPHEN KAISER; BOBBY ) 

BOONE; DAN REYNOLDS; JOY HADWIGER; ) 

MICHAEL CODY; EDWARD EVANS, JR.; ) 

JACK COWLEY; NEVILLE MASSIE; H.N. SCOTT;) 

SUE FRANK; DENISE SPEARS; EARL ALLEN; ) 

JIM SORRELS; OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL ) 

APPEALS; HONORABLE JAMES F. LANE; ) 

HONORABLE GARY L. LUMPKIN; HONORABLE ) 

THOMAS BRETT; HONORABLE ED PARKS; ) 

HONORABLE CHARLES A. JOHNSON; OKLAHOMA ) 

INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEMS (OIDS); ) 

HENRY A. MEYER, III, also known as ) 

Hank Meyer; RICHARD REEH; ) 

DOUG PARR; RICHARD JAMES; BECKY ) 

PFEFFERBAUM, M.D.; PATTI PALMER; ) 

E. ALVIN SCHAY, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees, ) 

) 

) 

) 

OKLAHOMA CRIMINAL DEFENSE, and NATIONAL ) 

ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS,) 

) 

Amicus Curiae. ) 

FILED 

'i.JIIited States Coart of Appcab 

Tenth Circuit APPEALS 

SEP 2 7 1994 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 93-5191 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. Nos. 90-C-448-B & 90-C-475-B) 

Appellate Case: 93-5191 Document: 01019306505 Date Filed: 09/27/1994 Page: 1 
Submitted on the briefs: 

Susan M. Otto, Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

for Petitioner-Appellant. 

Susan B. Loving, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Diane L. Slayton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Warden 

Respondents-Appellees. 

John M. Imel, John E. Rooney, Jr., of Moyers, Martin, Santee, Imel 

& Tetrick, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Gail L. Wettstein, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals RespondentsAppellees. 

Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

On September 8, 1993, petitioner filed the present appeal 

from the district court's order of August 10, 1993, denying 

petitioner habeas relief on his claim that his due process rights 

were violated by delays in adjudicating his direct criminal appeal 

in Oklahoma state court.l At the time the district court entered 

its August 10 order, additional habeas claims of petitioner were 

still pending before the district court. In disposing of this 

appeal, we take judicial notice that a new district court judge 

was assigned to the case after the August 10 order was entered, 

and that the new judge entered an order on March 29, 1994, 

dismissing petitioners' remaining habeas claims for failure to 

1 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-5191 Document: 01019306505 Date Filed: 09/27/1994 Page: 2 
exhaust. 

date. 

Petitioner has not appealed the entry of that order to 

In light of the district court's ruling of March 29, it 

appears that petitioner's habeas petition presented both exhausted 

and unexhausted claims. The Supreme Court has held that "a 

district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing both 

unexhausted and exhausted claims." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 

522 (1982). Therefore, rather than addressing the merits of 

plaintiff's exhausted due process claim arising from delay in 

adjudicating his direct criminal appeal, the district court should 

have either dismissed that claim, along with the unexhausted 

claims, or given petitioner an opportunity to resubmit his habeas 

petition raising only the exhausted claim. See id. at 520. We 

note that the district court has already addressed the third 

alternative, which involves considering whether petitioner's 

claims would be procedurally barred if he returned to state court 

and, if so, determining whether petitioner can show cause and 

prejudice to avoid the procedural bar. See Coleman v. Thompson, 

501 U.S. 722, 735 n.* (1991); Harris v. Champion, Nos. 90-C-448-E 

& 90-C-475-E, Order of March 29, 1994, at 10-12 (N.D. Okla. 

1994) (unpublished order). 

We therefore VACATE the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma entered 

August 10, 1993, and REMAND the action to the district court with 

directions to determine the status of petitioner's unexhausted 

claims and, if those claims remain unexhausted, either to dismiss 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-5191 Document: 01019306505 Date Filed: 09/27/1994 Page: 3 
petitioner's due process claim relating to appellate delay or to 

permit petitioner to refile his habeas petition asserting only his 

exhausted claim. 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-5191 Document: 01019306505 Date Filed: 09/27/1994 Page: 4