Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03314/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03314-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uniied Sta.t-s ~~ Ap'?,-h 

Tcr.th C,rew . FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD R. PARSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

APR 16 i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3314 

G.L. HENMAN, Warden; UNITED 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; ATTORNEY 

OF THE UNITED STATES, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

STATES ) 

GENERAL) 

) 

) 

) 

(D. C. No. 90-CV-3188-R) 

( D. Kan.) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

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. Parson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, appeals a 

decision denying him habeas and injunctive relief. We affirm. 

* 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: 91-3314 Document: 010110242979 Date Filed: 04/16/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Parson filed a one-inch thick prose habeas petition 

which borders on being incomprehensible. Applying the most 

liberal and charitable reading of this document, it appears to 

allege that federal prison officials failed to credit him with a 

nineteen-month period while he was out on parole, or perhaps that 

they failed to credit him with the nineteen months he was serving 

as a federal prisoner housed in a state penitentiary. Mr. 

Parson's second claim for relief is that the federal prison 

officials segregated him from the general prison population in 

order to deprive him of "the right to earn good time" or "function 

without harm." Several additional observations concerning this 

petition must be made. Mr. Parson names three defendants: the 

United States Attorney General, the Bureau of Prisons, and an 

individual, Warden G. Henman, who is never further described. The 

petition specifically alleges that Mr. Parsons has a habeas corpus 

appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit "concerning loss of parole 

liberty claims only." Finally, Mr. Parson does not challenge the 

judgment of conviction or the sentence but rather "the execution" 

of the sentence. 

Having filed his petition, Mr. Parson barraged the court with 

additional filings in this case. The record on appeal is nearly 

twelve inches thick and it fails to reflect all of the filings. 

To give the reader a flavor of the contents of this file, Mr. 

Parson filed numerous motions objecting to everything and accusing 

everyone of bad faith. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3314 Document: 010110242979 Date Filed: 04/16/1992 Page: 2
The district court, after ordering a response from the United 

States Government, dismissed the petition concluding the numerous 

documents attached to Mr. Parson's pleadings demonstrated he was 

not entitled to either injunctive or habeas relief. The district 

court failed to favor us by identifying the documents relied upon 

and thus left this court with the task of wading through this 

massive record on appeal. Mr. Parson attached hundreds of 

documents to his pleadings, many of which were letters from the 

Bureau of Prisons explaining in careful detail why Mr. Parson's 

claims were erroneous. 

Mr. Parson's pro se appeal continues the practice of 

providing the court with attachments. 

exhibits A through H-3. In his 

His opening brief contains 

appeal, Mr. Parson asks for 

"credit of time already served" and injunctive relief for "ongoing deliberate indifferences and intentional reckless disregards 

to appellants (sic] long known pervasive risks of harm elements. " 

We look first to Mr. Parson's apparent claim of serving time 

in a state prison which was not credited toward the serving of his 

federal sentence. The judgment and sentence attached by Mr. 

Parson clearly reflect he was in state custody, serving time for a 

state felony committed while he was on federal parole. This 

state conviction served as the basis for Mr. Parson's federal 

parole violation and for the United States Parole Commission's 

determination that Mr. Parson would receive no credit toward his 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3314 Document: 010110242979 Date Filed: 04/16/1992 Page: 3
federal sentence for the ti.me already spent on parole. Notably, 

Mr. Parson was later credited for some ti.me spent ti.me "on the 

street." Mr. Parson has cited no authority showing any decision 

by the United States Parole Board to be unlawful. Even one of Mr. 

Parson's own attachments refutes his claim. 

Second, the attachments supplied by Mr. Parson establish that 

it was necessary for the prison official to transfer him from one 

prison to another in order to protect Mr. Parson's life. The 

attachments reflect these transfers were not arbitrary. Moreover, 

Mr . Parson makes no showing he was deprived "good ti.me" as a 

result of the transfers. 

Rather than belabor these points, we note neither the United 

States Attorney General nor the United States Bureau of Prisons is 

a proper party and this appeal should be dismissed as to these 

parties. The third party, an individual, was not identified by 

Mr. Parson as to his capacity. Additionally, Mr. Parson made no 

allegations implicating the actions of this individual. There 

were no allegations this individual either did or did not do 

anything. Assuming Mr. Henman to be a proper party amounts to 

supplying allegations for Mr. Parson of which this court has no 

way of knowing the truth. This appeal should therefore be 

dismissed as to Mr. Henman. Consequently, no proper parties 

remain. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3314 Document: 010110242979 Date Filed: 04/16/1992 Page: 4
For all of these reasons, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-3314 Document: 010110242979 Date Filed: 04/16/1992 Page: 5