Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03151/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03151-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL1.Ju 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA&%ited States Court of Appeal~ ' i',,n +h r :,.,.,ij•, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARROL RICHARD OLSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STATE OF KANSAS; BOURBON COUNTY, ) 

KANSAS; HAROLD COLEMAN, Sheriff; PAUL ) 

CHRIS NELSON, County Attorney; GERALD W.) 

HART, Judge; RICHARD SMITH, Judge; ALEC) 

BETH, Administrator of Southeast ) 

Regional Correctional Facility; ROBERT ) 

STEPHAN, Attorney General of Kansas; ) 

GARY STOTTS, Warden of LCF, Lansing, ) 

Kansas, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 1 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3151 

(D.C. No. 92CV3095) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

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. 

* 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. 

3 6. 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-3151 Document: 010110212752 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 1 
34 (a ) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

case is there f ore ordered 

Carrol Richard Olson complaimed he was illegall y transfe rred 

from the Lansing Correctional Faci ity to the Southeast Kansas 

Regional Co rrection Facility (SIIRCF ) , in violation of 42 U.S. C. 

§§ 1983 and 1985, and of Kan. Stat Ann. §§ 60-15 01 and 60-15 07. 

He also complained of the con itions of confinement at SERCF. 

Finally, he alleged that defendant! conspired to deprive him of 

his civil rights because he i Jewish. The district court 

dismissed the complaint. We exerc ·se jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and affirm for substantiall the same reasons stated by the 

district court. 

In his complaint, which he fi ed thirteen days after he was 

transferred to SERCF, Olson cla ' med he had not been informed of 

the reason for the transfer, and h d not been allowed, at that 

p oint, to speak t o an attorney or a judge. From Olson's brief on 

appeal it is apparent that Olson 

appear at civil and criminal 

w knows he was transferred to 

roceedings which had been fil ed 

against him. He claims, however, hat the state is precluded by 

the Speedy Tria l Act and the etainers Act1 from pursuing the 

criminal charges that had been fil d more than a year befor e he 

was transferred. He reque sts his court to order the state t o 

dismiss the cha rges and relea se hi from SERCF. We find no err or 

1 We a ssume Olson is refe rring to t he Interstate Agreement on 

Detaine rs Ac t, 18 U. S . C. app. 2. Olson fails to explain how his 

t ransf e r t o SERCF r e sulted in a v ' olation of this act . Therefor e, 

we do not address this claim on appeal. Hall v . Bellman, 935 F.2d 

1106 , 1109- 10 (10th Cir. 1991 ) (~lthough pro se pleadings are 

const rue d liberally, pro se plain~iff has burden of alle ging f acts 

s ufficient t o s t ate cognizable l e~al claim) . 2 

Appellate Case: 92-3151 Document: 010110212752 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 2 
in the district court's refusal to address these claims because 

there is no indication that Olson has presented these allegations 

of error to the state court. United States v . Castor, 937 F.2d 

293, 296-97 (7th Cir. 1991) (for comity reasons federal courts may 

require detainees incarcerated by the state, awaiting trial, to 

exhaust speedy trial claims in state court before seeking writ of 

habeas corpus). Likewise, we find no error in the district 

court's failure to address Olson's claim that the state charges 

are false because Olson has not demonstrated that he exhausted 

this claim in state court. 

Regarding Olson's final claim on appeal, we agree with the 

district court that allegations of conspiracy to deprive Olson's 

constitutional rights on the basis of his religion are conclusory 

and not credible. Therefore, the district court appropriately 

dismissed the§ 1985 claim. 

Olson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the United States District Court for the District 

of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3151 Document: 010110212752 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3151 Document: 010110212752 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 4