Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06338/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06338-0/pdf.json

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

---

HERBERT 

v. 

STEPHEN 

GENERAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GLENN POLK, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

KAISER, Warden; ATTORNEY ) 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appel lees. ) 

APPEALS 

FIL ~ ..J 

United States Crl; : ~ 1 A,;,cal' Tenth C,;~u1t 

APR 2 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6338 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-695-W) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, 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. We gran t petiti oner Herbert Glenn 

Polk's motion for leave to appeal in forma pau per is and for a 

certificate of probable cause. The motion to appoint counsel is 

denied. 

* This order and judgment has no precedent ial value and shall not 

be c i ted, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

f or purpose s of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res j udicata, or c ollateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 3 6. 3 . 

---- --

Appellate Case: 92-6338 Document: 010110212796 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 1 
Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his habeas corpus 

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed other 

petitions for habeas relief. One petition, filed in 1989, CIV-89-

394-W, did not succeed; another petition the following year, CIV90-1664-W, was dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Therefore, 

petitioner's habeas petition here must be examined under the rules 

governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 9(b) reads as f ollows: 

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. 

If a later petition raises grounds for relief that were previously 

alleged but not determined on the merits, that later habeas petition may not be subject to dismissal as successive or abusive. 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

The government bears the initial burden of pleading the abuse 

of the writ defense, and must do so with clarity and particularity. Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 S . Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). This burden includes identifying "the claims that appear for the first 

time." Id. Thereafter, the burden lies with the petitioner to 

disprove abuse of the writ. Id. 

In its brief in support of its motion to dismiss this petition for habeas relief, Doc. 10, the government acknowledges that 

the petition is not successive, and attempts to raise the abuse of 

the writ defense. However, that motion does not identify the 

claims that appear for the first time in this habeas petition, or 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-6338 Document: 010110212796 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 2 
the allegations made by petitioner in his earlier habeas proceedings. In addition, the magistrate judge acknowledges in the Report and Recommendation to the district court, Doc. 16, p. 3, that 

the claims raised in CIV-89-394-W were "for the most part, reviewed on the merits." We can only conclude that some allegations 

may not have been treated on the merits. Petitioner's previous 

habeas petitions were not included in the record, nor referred to 

by the government, the magistrate judge or district judge with 

sufficient specificity for us to determine the substance of 

petitioner's previous allegations and the extent to which those 

claims may not have been reviewed on the merits. 

Therefore, we remand to the district court for further proceedings to determine the extent to which any allegations in 

petitioner's latest habeas petition may have been previously 

raised, but not dealt with on the merits, and/or how petitioner 

may have abused the writ. 

REMANDED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6338 Document: 010110212796 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6338 Document: 010110212796 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 4