Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07130/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07130-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L .i,) United States Coμrt qf. AppealP 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth C1rcu1t 

RICKY 0. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY MAYNARD; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7130 

(D.C. No. CV-91-73-S) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Ricky 0. Williams appeals from the dismissal of 

his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as an 

abuse of the writ. The petition alleges six grounds for relief: 

(1) denial of a speedy trial, (2) appearance in prison attire at 

* 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: 91-7130 Document: 010110151515 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 1 
trial, (3) inadequate sequestration of the jury during trial, 

(4) use of evidence of former voidable felony conviction at trial, 

(5) breach of plea bargain agreement and (6) (denominated as 

ground seven by plaintiff) imposition of an unauthorized sentence. 

The only issue on appeal is whether the district court's dismissal, on the ground petitioner's petition constituted an abuse 

of the writ, was appropriate. 

Petitioner filed his first petition pursuant to § 2254 in 

1986. That petition was dismissed by the district court after 

having been construed as favorably as possible to petitioner. 

Memo. Op. Case No. 86-530-C (E.D. Okla. June 29, 1987). (Petitioner apparently never appealed that dismissal; he complains that 

he was not notified of it.) Therefore, petitioner's habeas petition here must be examined under the rules governing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Rule 9(b) reads as follows: 

Successive petitions. A second or successive petition may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails 

to allege new or different grounds for relief and the 

prior determination was on the merits or, if new and 

different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the 

failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a 

prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ. 

We agree with the district court that the issues raised in the 

petition were not previously raised in the 1986 case and petitioner has made no showing of excusable neglect or unintentional 

abandonment. 

We must decide whether petitioner's delay in raising these 

issues until the present petition constitutes an abuse of the 

writ. We have required petitioners in habeas cases to prove the 

absence of intentional abandonment, or of excusable neglect, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7130 Document: 010110151515 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 2 
-

that a later-raised claim was not deliberately withheld. Once the 

government pleads the abuse of writ defense, it is petitioner's 

burden to prove good reason exists for not having raised the claim 

originally. Coleman v. Saffle, 869 F.2d 1377, 1381 (10th Cir. 

1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1090 (1991). The courts will not 

tolerate, even with a traditionally equitable remedy such as 

habeas corpus, "needless piecemeal litigation ... to vex, harass 

or delay." Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 (1963). Pro 

se litigants are held to the same standard, as to successive petitions, as are litigants who had counsel. Rodriguez v. Maynard, 

948 F.2d 684 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Petitioner has not established by any significant evidence, 

much less a preponderance of the evidence, why these new grounds 

for habeas corpus relief are not an abuse of the writ. He has not 

alleged that he was previously unaware of these grounds. None 

result from a change in the applicable law or are new factually. 

Coleman, 869 F.2d at 1380. As the magistrate judge noted in his 

recommendation to the district court, all of the facts supporting 

petitioner's allegations have been known to him for approximately 

eight years. Neither has petitioner made a colorable showing of 

factual innocence. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7130 Document: 010110151515 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 3