Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04006/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04006-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 18 1992 

ltOBERT L, HOECKE!t 

Clerk RONALD D. LANCASTER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

FRED VAN DER VEUR, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-4006 

(D.C. No. 91-C-641-J) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ronald Dean Lancaster appeals the dismissal of his second 

federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Utah conviction for 

aggravated assault by a prisoner. This court affirmed the 

*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: 92-4006 Document: 010110276751 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 1
dismissal of his initial habeas petition, see Lancaster v. Cook, 

930 F.2d 24 (table) (10th Cir. 1991), and we now affirm the 

dismissal of his second petition. 

All of the claims raised by Mr. Lancaster in his second 

petition are, by definition, either abusive or successive. See 

Robison v. Maynard, 958 F.2d 1013, 1015-16 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 112 s. Ct. 1461 (1992). Mr. Lancaster makes four claims 

in his second petition. Three of these claims were specifically 

raised in his first habeas petition. These claims are successive, 

and Mr. Lancaster must show that the ends of justice would be 

served by reaching the merits of these issues again. See Sanders 

v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963). Mr. Lancaster has not 

made such a showing and the district court did not err by 

declining to consider these arguments again. 

Mr. Lancaster also claims that he did not receive an 

effective appeal of his conviction before the Utah Supreme Court. 

He argues that the Utah court did not specifically address several 

of the errors Mr. Lancaster claimed infected his trial on the 

assault charge, and that the whole of the appellate process 

afforded him was constitutionally inadequate. See Appellant's 

Opening Brief, Addendum Bat 3. This claim was not explicitly 

raised by Mr. Lancaster's first habeas petition. Thus, the claim 

initially appears abusive. It is the state's burden to claim 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4006 Document: 010110276751 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 2
abuse of the writ, and it did so below. See rec., doc. 9 at 7. 

In response, petitioner must show cause and prejudice for his 

failure to raise this argument in his prior petition. Mccleskey 

v. Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). Mr. Lancaster argues that 

a liberal construction of his prior pleading indicates that he did 

raise this argument before, see rec., doc. 10, and that he 

therefore need not make a showing of cause and prejudice. 

Magistrate Boyce did not resolve this argument, deciding instead 

that the claim was mooted by the Tenth Circuit's consideration of 

the issues Mr. Lancaster claimed the Utah Supreme Court ignored. 

See rec., doc. 9 at 8. 

Because Mr. Lancaster's claim goes to the process afforded 

him on direct appeal, as well as to whether his arguments have 

been addressed by a competent court, his claim is not moot. The 

decision below must nevertheless be affirmed because the claim is 

barred under either Sanders or Mccleskey. Petitioner has shown 

neither that the ends of justice would be served by hearing this 

claim again nor that he had cause for his failure to bring this 

claim in his first petition. In short, under either potentially 

applicable standard, the district court's dismissal of Mr. 

Lancaster's claim was correct. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-4006 Document: 010110276751 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 3
Except for the differences discussed above, we AFFIRM for 

substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report, 

which the district court adopted. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4006 Document: 010110276751 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 4