Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03288/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03288-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN J. MCCARTHY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

J:4, IL E D 

'Gnited St.cit£,~- C.:· u· ... oi. Apr>&Js 'T'~-+r .... ;-,-.,..1t 

FEBO 7 1991 

:.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

WARDEN HENMAN, MEACHUM, 

Commissioner, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3288 

(D.C. No. 90-3353-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant John J. McCarthy, an inmate at Lansing 

Correctional Facility at Lansing, Kansas, appeals prose from the 

dismissal of his action. He also seeks leave to proceed on appeal 

in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner filed his complaint in forma pauperis on a prose 

form provided by the District of Kansas. On this form complaint, 

he checked the box designating his action as a motion to reduce or 

* 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. 

** 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-3288 Document: 010110098498 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 1 
correct sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 instead of the 

box denoting the pleading as a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 u.s.c. § 2254. The district court held that 

because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply only to 

federal proceedings, petitioner could not challenge his 

Connecticut sentence under Rule 35 and dismissed the action. 

McCarthy v. Henman, No. 90-3353-R, unpub. order (D. Kan. Sept. 21, 

1990). In a subsequent order, the district court found 

petitioner's appeal to be legally frivolous and denied him leave 

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 

The district court correctly held that the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure apply only to prosecutions in federal court and 

that petitioner was precluded from challenging the Connecticut 

Supreme Court's ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35. See Hale v. 

United States, 435 F.2d 737, 749 (5th Cir. 1970); Cameron v. 

Hauck, 383 F.2d 966, 971 n.7 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 

U.S. 1039 (1968). However, under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

521 (1972), the district court was required to construe 

petitioner's prose complaint liberally. A fair reading of 

petitioner's complaint reveals unmistakably that he is proceeding 

under a habeas corpus theory in attacking the determination of the 

Connecticut state courts. Petitioner's incorrect designation of 

his cause as a Rule 35 action should not preclude him from 

proceeding under a habeas corpus theory when it is clear from the 

complaint that he intended to proceed under such a theory. 

Consequently, the district court erred in declining to construe 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3288 Document: 010110098498 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 2 
petitioner's complaint as a S 2254 habeas corpus action and 

dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with Rule 35. 

Petitioner's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3288 Document: 010110098498 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 3