Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06125/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06125-0/pdf.json

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

---

l 

FILED 

United States Co11rt<?f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

SEP O 3 1991 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES L. ABELS, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER, Warden; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6125 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1528-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

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. 

James L. Abels, a prisoner of the State of Oklahoma, appeals 

the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Abels 

successfully prosecuted a previous§ 2254 petition in a case in 

*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: 91-6125 Document: 010110084252 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
/ . • 

which we ordered his release unless the State of Oklahoma provided 

him with appellate review and counsel. Abels v. Kaiser, 913 F.2d 

821 (10th Cir. 1990). Asserting the Oklahoma court failed to 

comply with this court's mandate, Mr. Abels filed a second § 2254 

petition in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma. That court granted only partial relief, and 

Mr. Abels filed this appeal. We affirm. 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in response to our 

1 directive to the federal district court, granted Mr. Abels an 

appeal out of time in eleven of the cases in which he sought 

review. The court further directed that if Mr. Abels wanted 

counsel to be appointed, he was to file an application and a 

pauper's oath in the trial court. Contending this order violated 

our mandate because we required the Court of Criminal Appeals to 

appoint counsel, Mr. Abels sought relief once again from the 

federal court. That court found that the Oklahoma court failed to 

grant Mr. Abels an appeal in one case and granted a writ of habeas 

corpus in that matter; however, the federal court refused to find 

the Court of Criminal Appeals improperly directed Mr. Abels to 

seek the appointment of counsel in the state trial court. 

The federal district court held that our mandate 

did not restrict the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' 

ability to follow its own rules and procedures and/or to 

fashion a set of time limitations and procedural 

requirements for petitioner's unique factual 

circumstances. Neither the time requirements imposed 

upon petitioner nor the requirement that he proceed 

1

The Oklahoma court was critical of our failure to seek from it an 

opinion whether Oklahoma law had been violated in Mr. Abels' case, 

yet it did accede to our interpretation. Abels v. State, 804 P.2d 

454, 455, (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6125 Document: 010110084252 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2 
.. / .. 

Mr. 

through the trial court for the appointment of counsel 

contravenes the Tenth Circuit's opinion remanding this 

cause. 

Abels takes issue with that ruling, contending the 

requirements of time and procedure imposed upon him violate his 

"6th and 14th Amendment Rights." He also asserts the federal 

district court's ruling deprives him of due process and equal 

protection. 

Mr. Abels has taken literally our mandate, interpreting it to 

mean we placed the burden directly upon the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals to fashion for him a special review with its own 

special rules. We had no such intent, and the federal district 

court correctly interpreted our mandate. In no way did this court 

direct the Oklahoma court to put aside its procedural rules or 

abdicate its inherent authority to manage its own cases. We 

therefore see no deprivation of Mr. Abels' guaranteed rights just 

because the state court required him to obtain counsel from its 

trial court in accordance with state procedures. Neither do we 

see any violation in the State Court's setting a time schedule for 

the prosecution of the appeals. We are fully satisfied the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has provided Mr. Abels with 

every right to which he is entitled. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6125 Document: 010110084252 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 3