Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05200/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05200-0/pdf.json

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

---

" 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F l L E D 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Uttuffl ltit Courr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

WILLIAM HUMPHREY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TULSA COUNTY JUDGE 

JENNINGS; and FRANK THURMAN, 

Tulsa County Attorney OklaState, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG - ~ 1990 

A.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5200 

(D.C. No. 87-C-477-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

This is a state prisoner's appeal from the denial of a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 

*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: 89-5200 Document: 010110039606 Date Filed: 08/03/1990 Page: 1 
f • • 

Papers filed by the petitioner in the district court are less 

than clear, but they appear to state several conclusory claims of 

constitutional deprivation. No facts supporting these claims are 

discernible. Moreover, a judge who participated in part of the 

state proceedings has been made respondent rather than the person 

actually having custody of the petitioner. 

not the problems presented by this appeal. 

These, however, are 

Upon petitioner's failure or inability to respond to the 

district court's directions to submit a statement of petitioner's 

efforts to obtain relief in state court, the magistrate ordered 

the state attorney general to respond to the petition. In part, 

the attorney general was directed to advise the court whether 

petitioner had exhausted his state remedies. 

Without explanation appearing in the record, the attorney 

general failed to respond within the time set by the court, thus 

prompting petitioner to seek summary judgment. Apparently goaded 

by petitioner's efforts, the attorney general filed a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust. 1 

Petitioner failed to respond to the state's motion; 

therefore, after waiting for more than five months, on its own 

motion the court extended the time for the response. The court 

then waited an additional seven months, but a response was not 

filed. At that point, under the provisions of Rule 15A of the 

1

Although the state's motion refers to a "memorandum brief" 

attached to the motion for factual support, that memorandum is not 

part of the record on appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5200 Document: 010110039606 Date Filed: 08/03/1990 Page: 2 
local rules of the Northern District of Oklahoma, 2 the court 

deemed the motion confessed and dismissed the petition on the 

ground that Mr. Humphrey had not exhausted his state remedies. 

This appeal followed. 

Mr. Humphrey's jargon laden brief is a potpourri of 

conclusory reasons why he should be granted federal habeas corpus, 

but we can find no place in all his papers in which he 

demonstrates the district court improperly relied upon its local 

rule, or, more importantly, that he had in fact exhausted his 

state remedies at the time he filed his petition. 

Upon the state of this record, we cannot conclude the trial 

court erred in holding petitioner failed to exhaust his state 

remedies. This conclusion, however, is not a bar to Mr. Humphrey 

should he fail to obtain relief in state court. After fully 

exhausting the remedies provided to him by the state of Oklahoma, 

Mr. Humphrey can re-file in federal court if he wishes. 

2 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

In part, the rule provides that a party opposing a motion in a 

civil case must file a response within 15 days, and failure to 

respond will constitute a confession of the matters raised in the 

motion. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5200 Document: 010110039606 Date Filed: 08/03/1990 Page: 3