Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03198/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03198-0/pdf.json

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

---

F l .L .C.J l) l 

tJnit.cd St.a.t~s Oiurt ot Ap;:~:·, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Te,,t.h C:r:ui~ 

MARION A. ROBINSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVEN J . DAVIES; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

KANSAS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR2 41992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3198 

(D.C. No. 89-CV- 3069 ) 

(Dist. of Kan. ) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Marion A. Robinson (Robinson), an inmate at the Kansas State 

Penitentiary, appearing prose, appeals from the district court's 

order dismissing, without prejudice, his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal 

habeas corpus petition. The petition was dismissed for failure to 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value a nd 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. 

be 

for 

res 

Appellate Case: 91-3198 Document: 010110243074 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 1
exhaust all available state remedies on claim six, which alleged 

that Robinson had been denied compulsory process of defense 

witnesses during his Kansas state criminal trial. Robinson's 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His request that 

we issue a certificate of probable cause is granted. 

Following the district court's order of dismissal, Robinson 

filed a petition to reopen which the court construed as an attempt 

to amend the petition so as to drop claim six and proceed on the 

exhausted claims one through five. In denying the motion, the 

court stated: 

Given the stage of the proceedings, and the fact that 

petitioner is free to refile a petition which raises 

only the exhausted five grounds, the court finds it 

appropriate to deny the motion. The court finds no 

unwarranted delay results in denying the motion. In 

responses to the original petition, the state addressed 

only the exhaustion issue, and requested leave to 

address the merit of petitioner's claims if the petition 

was not dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

{R., Filefolder, Order of May 21, 1991). 

On appeal, Robinson alleges that the district court has 

conspired with the defendants/respondents to unconstitutionally 

impede, delay, obstruct and deny him court access/redress for some 

twenty-three (23) months. Robinson requests that this court 

remove this action to an "out of state court" and assign it to an 

"~t of state judge," order a prompt hearing and full 

investigation of the defendants. In addition, Robinson moved for 

release on appeal bond and for the appointment of appellate 

counsel. Those motions are hereby denied. 

Appellant Robinson misconceives his legal obligation to 

exhaust available state remedies as to all federal claims 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3198 Document: 010110243074 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 2
presented in a§ 2254 federal habeas corpus petition. In Coleman 

v. Thompson, U. S. , 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991 ) , the 

Supreme Court stated that "This Court has long held that a state 

prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed if 

the prisoner has not exhausted available state remedies as to any 

of his federal claims." See also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 

(1982 ) ; Hurd v. Mondragon, 851 F.2d 324, 327-28 (10th Cir. 1988 ) . 

We AFFIRM. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3198 Document: 010110243074 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 3