Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03373/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03373-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

United Stat~s Coart of Appeal:; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'fr-t!"i (';M,fr•. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR O G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

GARY LEE MCCOLPIN, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STEVEN J. DAVIES; KANSAS PAROLE ) 

BOARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-3373 

(D. C. No. 90-3008-S) 

{ D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Mccolpin, a state inmate, appeals the dismissal of his 

prose habeas petition. 

* 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: 91-3373 Document: 010110240369 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 1
A review of the record on appeal reveals that in 1976 Mr. 

Mccolpin was convicted of kidnapping, attempted indecent liberties 

with a child and enticement of a child. He received an aggregate 

sentence of twenty-one years to life. In 1987 Mr. McColpin's case 

was presented to the Kansas Parole Board with two members voting 

to grant parole and one voting to deny parole. As Kansas law 

requires unanimity, the Kansas Parole Board passed his case and 

recommended that Mr. Mccolpin participate in sex offender 

counseling before his next parole hearing. Mr. Mccolpin 

unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the Kansas Court of 

Appeals. 

Mr. Mccolpin then filed his prose habeas petition under 28 

u.s.c. § 2254 with the United States District Court. In this 

petition he claimed the decision of the individual Parole Board 

member who voted against his parole was arbitrary and capricious 

and that this Board member misrepresented the facts of his case. 

The District Court found the record contained no factual support 

for this position beyond Mr. McColpin's own uncorroborated 

statements. 

Mr. McColpin's second claim, as set forth in his habeas 

petition, was that the Parole Board's recommendation that he 

attend mental health programs for sex offenders constitutes cruel 

and unusual punishment as he had twice before attended such a 

program. The District Court, relying upon Rummel v. Estelle, 445 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3373 Document: 010110240369 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 2
U.S. 263, 271-74 (1980), reasoned that the Eighth Amendment bars 

punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the offense and 

concluded no such disproportionality exists in Mr. McColpin's 

case. 

The District Court denied relief and dismissed the case. Mr. 

McColpin appeals pro se. Mr. Mccolpin reiterates his original 

arguments. He also urges reconsideration of the prior order of 

this court denying him appointment of counsel to pursue this 

appeal. 

Mr. Mccolpin is granted permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find ourselves in 

agreement with the actions of the District Judge. Mr. Mccolpin 

fails to persuade us. The judgment and decision of the District 

Court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth by 

the District Court. We also deny reconsideration of this court's 

order denying the appointment of counsel. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3373 Document: 010110240369 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 3