Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03289/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03289-0/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 

GEORGE E. CARTER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

Fl .L~lJ 

United Sta~s Cou~ or Ap;::-r.b 

Tc,, L.'1 Ci ,·:i~ 

MAY 2 9 i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

RICHARD P. THORNBURGH, J. MICHAEL ) 

QUINLAN, and GARY L. HENMAN, ) 

) 

No. 91-3289 

(D.C. No. 91-3132-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Mr. Carter appeals the dismissal of his prose civil rights 

complaint. We grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis and 

* 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: 91-3289 Document: 010110254344 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 1
affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Mr. Carter filed a prose complaint against the United States 

Attorney General, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the 

Warden of the United States Prison at Leavenworth. In his 

pleadings Mr. Carter alleged he was convicted in the Superior 

Court of Washington, D.C., of three armed robberies and carrying a 

pistol without a license. He received a sentence of twenty-two to 

sixty-six years, plus one year. He also asserted he was convicted 

in Alexandria, Virginia, for escape and received a sentence of 

ninety days. Mr. Carter also alleged the District of Columbia 

Department of Corrections transferred him to the Federal 

Corrections Institution. Based upon these facts, Mr. Carter 

asserted the District of Columbia (not a party to this suit) 

committed an abuse of process. By transfering him to federal 

custody, he asserted, the District of Columbia unconditionally 

waived its jurisdiction -- thereby granting him an implied pardon 

or commutation of sentence. Mr. Carter claimed he is therefore 

falsely imprisoned in the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

He asked for declaratory and injunctive relief and $7,500,000 in 

damages. 

We note the district court rejected the same issues in a 

companion habeas corpus case filed by Mr. Carter. Apparently, he 

has not appealed that decision. 

The district court dismissed Mr. Carter's civil rights 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3289 Document: 010110254344 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 2
complaint, concluding there existed "no arguable legal basis for 

imposing liability on the defendants." The district court further 

refused Mr. Carter permission to appeal in forma pauperis finding 

his allegation on appeal conclusory and frivolous and the appeal 

itself legally frivolous. 

Mr. Carter appeals prose asserting: (1) the district court 

failed to address the issues; (2) the district court "ignored that 

[sic] facts that plaintiff was sentenced from two separate 

sovereigns"; and (3) the district court improperly manifested "a 

partial attitude in favor of the government" thereby depriving him 

of a fair trial. 

Appellees elected to file no response after asserting the 

district court had no jurisdiction over them. 

In essence, the district court dismissed Mr. Carter's 

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. Mr. Carter failed to allege any wrongdoing by the named 

defendants under his first two causes of action. If an abuse of 

process occurred, it resulted from actions taken by the District 

of Columbia. Likewise, if an implied pardon or commutation of 

sentence was granted, the District of Columbia is responsible. 

The defendants named here are not the proper parties to defend 

such charges. Concerning Mr. Carter's third "cause of action," 

i.e., false imprisonment, this issue was previously decided when 

the district court refused to grant habeas corpus relief. See 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3289 Document: 010110254344 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 3
also, Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487 (10th Cir. 1991) (for 

Tenth Circuit's review of similar claims made by fellow inmate). 

In attempting to set forth a tort claim, Mr. Carter has simply 

failed to set forth a claim showing he is entitled to relief. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3289 Document: 010110254344 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 4