Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03284/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03284-0/pdf.json

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

---

r 

! FI LED 

Uaite-d Stata Cooft of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 6 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

EDDIE M. NABORS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, and 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-3284 

) (D.C. No. 89-3387) 

) (D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

The underlying habeas corpus action was commenced September 

15, 1989. The district court dismissed, sua sponte, on September 

29, 1989, for the reason that petitioner-appellant had failed to 

* 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: 89-3284 Document: 01019964506 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 1 
)' 

exhaust administrative remedies. However, 

expressly rule on petitioner's motion for 

counsel and affidavit of bias and prejudice. 

the court did not 

the appointment of 

This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

After review of the files and records, we conclude that 

petitioner has alleged efforts to obtain administrative relief 

that may have been sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement. Consequently, dismissal of 

response by the defendants was premature. 

the action prior to a 

It also appears that 

the circumstances may have changed significantly since the time of 

the district court's order. 

Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 

1. The motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of 

costs or fees is GRANTED; 

2. The district court's judgment dated September 29, 1989, 

is VACATED; and 

3 . The matter is REMANDED to the district court with 

instructions to: 

a.) Direct issuance of summons for service on 

respondents; 

b.) Require a r esponse from r espondents in no less than 

twenty days; and 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3284 Document: 01019964506 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 2 
• 

~ . 

c.) Undertake further proceedings and disposition as 

expeditiously as the c i rcumstances pe r mit. 

It is further ordered that the mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3284 Document: 01019964506 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 3