Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06255/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

,.. 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 1 ;3 1991 

CRAIG CLENDENING, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY MAYNARD and BILLIE MOSER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 90-6255 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1016-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Mr. Craig Clendening, an inmate in the custody of the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections, brought this action prose in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and for habeas corpus 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6255 Document: 010110119439 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 1 
-

relief. The district court, noting that plaintiff's complaint 

challenged the validity or duration of his confinement, held that 

plaintiff's action was improperly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

and construed his complaint as a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. 28 u.s.c. § 2254 (1988). The district court then dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to exhaust state court 

remedies. 

Plaintiff argues here that his state petition for habeas corpus was denied in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma four 

days before the district court filed its opinion in the case 

before us. Plaintiff claims that at the time of the district 

court's ruling, therefore, he had exhausted all state court remedies available to him. We REVERSE the judgment of the district 

court dismissing plaintiff's claim for failure to exhaust state 

court remedies. We REMAND the cause for a determination of 

whether plaintiff has- indeed exhausted his state court remedies 

and, if necessary, a determination on the merits of plaintiff's 

claims. See Osborn v. Schillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 616 (10th Cir. 

1988). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6255 Document: 010110119439 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 2