Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08047/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 4 1991 

--------ROBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk 

KEVIN WINSTON OSBORN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER, Warden, ) 

Wyoming State Penitentiary; ) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of ) 

Wyoming; TOM ZOLLINGER, County) 

Attorney, Sweetwater County, ) 

Wyoming, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-8047 

(D. C. No. 90-19) 

(D. Wyo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 1 
✓ 

Appellant, Kevin Winston Osborn, pleaded guilty on August 23, 

1982, to attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery of 

Dale Moore, and aiding and abetting the first degree murder of 

Audrey Ditmars in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. He also pleaded 

guilty to conspiracy to commit 

robbery and the felony murder 

aggravated robbery, aggravated 

of Jimmy Ray O'Briant in Uinta 

County, Wyoming. The two cases were consolidated into one trial 

in Sweetwater County. After a two-day sentencing hearing, Osborn 

was sentenced to death for the first degree felony murder of 

O'Briant. 

Osborn appealed directly to the Wyoming Supreme Court for 

review of his sentence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed both 

judgment and sentence. Osborn v. State, 672 P.2d 777 (Wyo. 1983), 

cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051 (1984). In 1985, a Motion for Stay of 

Execution, filed on behalf of Osborn was denied by the Wyoming 

Supreme Court. Osborn v. Shillinger, 705 P.2d 1246 (Wyo. 1985). 

Osborn then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

United States District Court for the District of Wyoming 

requesting relief from his death sentence. The district court 

reversed the death penalty and allowed Osborn to withdraw his 

guilty plea, holding the plea was obtained in violation of his 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Osborn 

v. Schillinger, 639 F. Supp. 610 (D. Wyo. 1986). This decision 

was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit in Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 

F.2d 612 (10th Cir. 1988). The O'Briant murder and robbery 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 2 
charges were rescheduled for the state court trial. Osborn again 

pleaded guilty to avoid exposure to the death penalty and received 

two life sentences. 

In 1989 Osborn filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming 

alleging his guilty plea to the Sweetwater County charges (aiding 

and abetting the first degree murder of Ditmars and attempted 

first degree murder and aggravated robbery of Moore) was 

involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Osborn had 

been represented by the same state public defender and the entry 

of guilty pleas to all crimes occurred simultaneously before the 

same judge. In an answer to order to show cause why habeas corpus 

relief should not be granted, the State proposed that because the 

state prosecutions were consolidated and Osborn entered his guilty 

pleas at the same hearing, represented by same counsel, the result 

in this case should be controlled by the findings and results in 

the prior habeas corpus action. Osborn v. Shillinger, No. C89-

0073J (U.S.D.C. D. Wyo. 1989). 

habeas corpus relief stating: 

Judge Alan B. Johnson granted 

[T]here is no distinction between the two consolidated 

state[] prosecutions in which the present petition now 

comes before this court, [and] the court finds that 

Osborn was deprived of his constitutional rights at both 

the plea and sentencing stages of those prior state 

proceedings with respect to his convictions for the 

crimes he committed in Sweetwater County. 

Id. Judge Johnson then ordered: 

[the] case be remanded to a state district court in a 

county other than Uinta or Sweetwater County, before 

another judge, far removed from the scene of the crimes 

and their attendant publicity, so that the petitioner, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 3 
Kevin Winston Osborn, may withdraw his guilty pleas to 

crimes he committed in Sweetwater County, and enter new 

pleas, and proceed to trial or sentencing or both. 

Osborn subsequently petitioned the United States District 

Court for the District of Wyoming pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 

the All Writs Act, for issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering 

that the respondents below release him from confinement due to 

unnecessary delay in commencing criminal proceedings against him. 

Osborn v. Shillinger, No. 90-19 (U.S.D.C. D. Wyo.). The district 

court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. It is from this order of dismissal that Osborn 

appeals. We affirm the district court's order of dismissal by 

applying a de nova standard of review to the question of 

jurisdiction, which is a question of law. 

Prior to the district court's dismissal of Osborn's petition 

for a writ of mandamus, and pursuant to the district court's 

conditional writ of habeas corpus, the State of Wyoming initiated 

reprosecution against Osborn. In June, 1990, judgment and 

sentence were entered. Osborn appealed the decision to the 

Wyoming Supreme Court which again affirmed both judgment and 

conviction. Osborn v. State, 806 P.2d 259 (Wyo. 1991). 

Osborn contends that "jurisdiction of the district court had 

been established when the appellant was granted habeas relief 

October 4, 1989." While Osborn is correct in his assertion that 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 4 
the district court had jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief, 

the district court did not retain jurisdiction after habeas relief 

was granted. The United States Supreme Court has held that 

"[n)either [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 60(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, nor the two 

read together, permit a federal habeas court to maintain a 

continuing supervision over a retrial conducted pursuant to a 

conditional writ granted by the habeas court." Pitchess v. Davis, 

421 U.S. 482, 490 (1975). Following the rationale of Pitchess, 

the district court had no authority to entertain Osborn's claim 

that he was deprived of the right to a speedy trial. 

Osborn's petition became moot when the state initiated 

criminal proceedings. In federal cases, an actual controversy 

must exist at all stages of review, not merely at the time initial 

pleadings are filed. Johnson v. Riveland, 855 F.2d 1477, 1480 

(10th Cir. 1988). "'[F]ederal courts are without power to decide 

questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case 

before them.'" Id. (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 

246 ( 1971) (per curiam)). 

Osborn further contends that a writ of mandamus is the proper 

remedy to enforce a United States District Court order. Pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. § 1361, "[t)he district courts shall have original 

jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an 

officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to 

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." "[T]he remedy of mandamus 

is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations." 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 5 
.. 

Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) 

(citing Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967). To grant 

mandamus relief, the court must find: II ( 1) a clear right in the 

plaintiff to the relief sought; ( 2) a plainly defined and 

preemptory duty on the part of the defendant to do the action in 

question; and ( 3 ) no other adequate remedy available." Hadley 

Memorial Hosp .• Inc. v. Schweiker, 689 F.2d 905, 912 (10th Cir. 

1982) (citing Cervoni v. HEW, 581 F.2d 1010, 1019 (1st Cir. 

1978)). In light of these requirements, Osborn's claim states no 

valid claim for mandamus relief. 

Based on the foregoing, we reject the contention that the 

United States District Court for the District of Wyoming had 

subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Osborn's petition for a 

writ of mandamus. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-8047 Document: 010110034360 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 6