Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01363/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM D. LESTER, JR. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United Sta~ ( ,0 ,t ~ o; l.ppeala ~ " .. . ,. .. : ., ...... ;,. 

APR 161991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1363 

CITY, COUNTY, STATE OF PUEBLO, 

COLORADO, PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. 90-F-1883) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGIIEBT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellant brought a prose "Petition Under 28 u.s.c. S 2254 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody." The 

district court dismissed the complaint. The court found that 

while appellant "styles this matter as a habeas corpus action, he 

is not attacking the fact or length of confinement, or seeking 

release from custody. He seeks $200,000,000 in damages as relief 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1363 Document: 010110034190 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 1 
instead," apparently under a theory of medical malpractice. See 

Dist. Ct. Order at 1. 

Appellant may or may not have an action for medical 

malpractice. Dismissal of his habeas petition is without 

prejudice to his right to pursue any malpractice claims that he 

may have in an appropriate forum. However, because it was clear 

to the district court that petitioner was not in custody when the 

action was filed and because the relief sought was for damages, 

dismissal of his habeas petition was proper. See Maleng v. Cook, 

490 U.S. 488 (1989); Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 

(1973). Our review of the complaint confirms this conclusion. 

Therefore, we GRANT appellant ' s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, DENY his request for appointed counsel, and AFFIRM the 

district court order. 

-2-

Entered for the Court, 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1363 Document: 010110034190 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 2