Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03299/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03299-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL .tJ D 

United Stat.es Cot.rt of AppeaLc 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

MICHAEL JAMES FRANKLIN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUISE. BRUCE; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF KANSAS, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Respondents-Appellees. 

JAN 1 ~ 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3299 

(D.C. No. 92-3283-8 ) 

(Dist . of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore 

Michael James Franklin (Franklin), appearing prose , appeals 

from the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 2254 . Finding Franklin's appeal frivolous and not 

taken in good faith, the federal district court denied Franklin 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

* 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: 92-3299 Document: 010110157245 Date Filed: 01/15/1993 Page: 1 
In order to succeed on his motion to proceed without 

prepayment of fees and costs, petitioner must show both the 

financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the 

existence of a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and 

facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 (d ) ; Coppedge v . United States, 369 U. S. 438 (1962 ) ; Ragan v . 

Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). We affirm the district court's 

denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, in order 

to reach the merits, we grant the petition for a certificate of 

probable cause. 

Franklin is currently incarcerated in the Norton Correctional 

Facility, Norton, Kansas. Pursuant to Kan. Stat . Ann. § 60-1501, 

Franklin filed a habeas corpus petition in the Norton County 

District Court in May, 1992, which was followed by an amended 

petition in June, 1992. In July, 1992, Franklin filed the instant 

federal habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Franklin asserts 

that his parole was improperly revoked in April, 1992, and that he 

has since been detained in violation of his constitutional rights. 

Namely, he urges that he has not yet been afforded an evidentiary 

hearing. 

The federal district court, by Memorandum and Order of July 

31, 1992, dismissed Franklin's petition, noting that the state 

court had not addressed the issues raised, and that Franklin had, 

therefore, failed to exhaust his state court remedies as required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) .

1 The court observed that, 11 

1 Section 2254(b) provides: 

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3299 Document: 010110157245 Date Filed: 01/15/1993 Page: 2 
petitioner has only begun the state procedure" and that "should 

the district court deny his petition, he must then appeal to the 

Kansas Court of Appeals." Then, 11 [i]f that court also denies him 

relief, he must petition for review in the Kansas Supreme Court . " 

Franklin appeals the decision dismissing his petition for 

federal habeas relief, asserting that he has presented his federal 

claim to the Norton County District Court and has been denied a 

full and fair evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he has 

exhausted all available state court remedies and that the state 

court's long delay has deprived him of due process of law, 

entitling him to an evidentiary hearing in federal court or a 

discharge from further unlawful restraint. 

Franklin is not appealing from a state court's denial of his 

petition for habeas relief. No Kansas court has disposed of 

Franklin's petition, and he has therefore not exhausted his state 

remedies. See Blair v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 28 (10th Cir. 1966). 

"The Court has long held that state prisoners must exhaust state 

remedies before obtaining federal habeas relief." Keeney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 112 S. Ct. 1715, 1720 (1992). In Keeney, the 

Supreme Court indicated that exhaustion must be serious and 

meaningful and requires more than mere notice. 

The purpose 

procedural hurdle 

of exhaustion is not to create a 

on the path to federal habeas court, 

a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court shall not be granted unless it appears that the 

applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the 

courts of the State, or that there is either an absence 

of available State corrective process or the existence 

of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to 

protect the rights of the prisoner. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3299 Document: 010110157245 Date Filed: 01/15/1993 Page: 3 
but to channel claims into an appropriate forum, where 

meritorious claims may be vindi cated and u nfounded 

litigation obviated before resort to federal court. 

Comity concerns dictate that the requirement of 

exhaustion is not satisfied by the mere statement of a 

federal claim in state court. J ust as the State must 

afford the petitioner a full and fair hearing on his 

federal claim, so must the petitioner afford the State a 

full and fair opportunity to address and resolve the 

claim on the merits. 

Here, Franklin attempts to bypass the orderly process of the 

state courts. He has failed to demonstrate an absence of state 

corrective processes, that he has exhausted all available state 

remedies, or that the state's corrective processes ineffectively 

protect his rights. The fact that the state court has not acted 

on petitioner' s application for writ of habeas corpus which has 

been pending for about two months does not, without more, 

authorize the discharge of petitioner, and does not, without more, 

constitute exhaustion of state remedies or show that such remedies 

are ineffective. See Click v. Ohio, 319 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1963 ) . 

Further, Franklin petitions this court for a writ o f 

mandamus, or in the alternative, a writ of prohibition, directing 

the Honorable Dale E . Saffels, Senior United States District Court 

Judge for the District of Kansas, to show cause why an evidentiary 

hearing at the federal level will not be conducted. 

"[T)o be entitled to mandamus relief, a petitioner must show 

a clear abuse of discretion or conduct which arbitrarily assumes 

and exercises authority contrary to that of the judiciary." 

McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991). Because 

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, Franklin must also show "that 

he lacks an alternative for the relief he seeks." Id. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3299 Document: 010110157245 Date Filed: 01/15/1993 Page: 4 
Franklin has failed to show that the district court abused 

its discretion. Because the Kansas state courts have not yet 

disposed of Franklin's habeas petition, the district court 

properly refused to entertain the same . Franklin has not 

demonstrated that he has no alternative from which to seek relief. 

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the 

district court properly considered Franklin's petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus and correctly found that Franklin failed to 

exhaust all available state remedies. We conclude that Franklin 

can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of 

the issues raised on appeal. Therefore, the motion for leave to 

proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is DENIED. 

Further, Franklin's petition for a writ of mandamus, or 

alternatively, for a writ of prohibition, is DENIED. We AFFIRM. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 5-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3299 Document: 010110157245 Date Filed: 01/15/1993 Page: 5