Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01170/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01170-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

u~iced States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 1 ~ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

GEORGE E. CHATFIELD, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

BENNY JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, and 

LOU HESSE, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 90-1170, 90-1171 

) (D.C. Nos. 90-Z-0516, 89-Z-1932) 

) (D. Colorado) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

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 is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 90-1170 Document: 010110119426 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner, George E. Chatfield, appeals from the district 

court's denial of his petitions for writ of habeas corpus of 

May 29, 1990, and July 10, 1990. Mr. Chatfield acknowledges that 

the two petitions concern the same issues, and we will treat them 

here as one. 

The district court denied Mr. Chatfield's petition for 

failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner has the burden of 

demonstrating that state remedies have been exhausted, Clonce v. 

Presley, 640 F.2d 271, 273 (10th Cir. 1981), and he has attempted 

to meet this burden by insisting repeatedly that he has exhausted 

state remedies without specifying how each claim was exhausted. 

While it may be true that he has exhausted state remedies for 

many of the claims he has advanced in previous habeas corpus 

actions or in the appeal of his conviction, he is unable to point 

to exhaustion of state remedies for the claims advanced in the 

present petition. In fact, he admits in one of his many motions 

submitted with his petition that he has purposely not exhausted 

ground four of his complaint, which ironically asserts that 

Colorado state courts are denying him access. Form XB-2, Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, March 27, 1990, at 15. In addition, 

Mr. Chatfield advances claims that have been fully adjudicated 

both in state and federal court. Compare 

petition with Chatfield v. Ricketts, 673 F.2d 

cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 (1982). 

ground two of his 

330 (10th Cir.), 

Since Mr. Chatfield has not met his burden of demonstrating 

exhaustion of state remedies on at least one of the grounds of his 

habeas corpus petition, his petition must be denied. Rose v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1170 Document: 010110119426 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 2 
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). In addition, Mr. Chatfield is 

attempting to raise issues arising from his conviction that have 

long since been settled by this court. Chatfield v. Ricketts, 673 

F.2d 330 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 843 (1982). The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1170 Document: 010110119426 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 3