Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07054/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07054-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LUCILLE FRANCES RAME, 

Plaintiff- Appellant, 

FILED 

Uoired States Court of Appeals ":""" ..,~!}· r-: ... ,- ~:.,. 

I "I' r .__ •. ~""' 1.--"O 1.,.; .... : __ ...,, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-7054 

(D . C. No. 89-238-C) 

( E. D. Ok la • ) 

JUDGE DAVID ALLEN BOX; and 

TWELFTH JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Although difficult to discern from the confused state of the 

record, plaintiff-appellant Lucille Rame, is an inmate in the 

custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Rame 

apparently was convicted in Oklahoma state court of either 

, conspiring to murder her husband or actually murdering him. 

Having exhausted her state court remedies, Rame filed this action, 

* 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: 89-7054 Document: 01019969805 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 1 
prose, under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 in the Oklahoma federal district 

court alleging she was denied a fair trial for innumerable 

reasons. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. S 1406(a) for improper venue, and Rame appealed. We do 

not address the question of venue because we conclude that Rame is 

not entitled to a certificate of probable cause and thus is unable 

to pursue her appeal. 

Although Rame's complaint is styled as arising under S 1983, 

her action is properly construed as one for habeas corpus relief 

under 28 U.S.C. S 2254 because the relief she seeks is a new 

trial. Accordingly, we must ask whether Rame is entitled to a 

certificate of probable cause (incidentally, for which she has 

moved) which would allow her to proceed with this appeal. In 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983), the Supreme Court 

established the standard for the issuance of a certificate of 

probable cause: "[P]robable cause requires something more than 

the absence of frivolity •• [A] certificate of probable 

cause requires petitioner to make a substantial showing of the 

denial of a federal right." Having carefully reviewed the record 

in this case, as well as Rame's appellate brief, we are convinced 

that she has not met that standard. 

The motion for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7054 Document: 01019969805 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 2