Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06333/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Umced States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 90-6333 

HERMAN T. CLARK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D. C. No. CR-75-32-D) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, 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. Clark appeals denial of relief in his eighth post 

conviction relief proceeding. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6333 Document: 010110105211 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 1 
Factual Background 

In January 1975, the First State Bank of Gould, Oklahoma, was 

robbed by two men. The robbers assaulted two bank employees, 

knocking them unconscious. Two other bank employees were 

abducted, one of whom was killed and the other assaulted. On the 

same day Mr. Clark was arrested by the FBI and admitted he had 

been inside the bank during the robbery. 

Approximately one month later Mr. Clark entered 

nolo contendere to the charge of bank robbery 

a plea of 

(18 u.s.c. 

§ 2113(a), (d), and (e)). Mr. Clark was represented by counsel. 

Even though the government opposed the acceptance of the plea, the 

district court accepted the nolo plea and sentenced Mr. Clark to 

life imprisonment. 

Procedural Background 

Mr. Clark may fairly be described as a prolific writ writer. 

The file in this case is massive. The highlights of Mr. Clark's 

prior efforts to secure his freedom may be found in United States 

v. Clark, 429 F. Supp. 89 (W.D. Okla. 1976), and cases numbered 

76-1799, 78-1626, 80-1653, 85-1340 (cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1106 

(1986)), 86-2378, and 87-2748, in this court. These prior 

proceedings have involved a number of claims by Mr. Clark, 

including ineffective assistance of counsel; defective indictment; 

involuntary and unintelligent plea; the district court lacked 

jurisdiction; noncompliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and bad 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6333 Document: 010110105211 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 2 
faith of counsel. None of these cases was decided in favor of Mr. 

Clark. 

The Present Cases 

Mr. Clark filed a motion entitled "Motion to Withdraw and 

Vacate Court's Final Order Pursuant 

Procedure -- Rule 60(b)." The thrust of 

to Federal Rule of Civil 

this motion was: (1) 

noncompliance with Rule 11 in that the district court made an 

inquiry concerning the factual basis of the crime and Mr. Clark 

responded without first having been advised of his right to remain 

silent; and (2) the indictment was defective as it failed "to 

include that episode [the killing] .... Nor did the indictment 

include the presence and assault of the bank's vice-president." 

(Motion to Withdraw and Vacate Court's Final Order Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 60(b), filed August 27, 

1990, p. 15) Mr. Clark argues the omission of these two crimes 

subject him to the danger of retrial. 

The district court found this motion abusive of federal 

procedures allowing collateral challenges to convictions (District 

Court Order of September 7, 1990), and further noted Mr. Clark had 

suggested no cause for his failure to raise the instant grounds in 

his prior post conviction pleadings. Consequently, the district 

court denied the motion. 

This action by the district court caused Mr. Clark to file: 

(1) a motion for rehearing; and (2) a motion to disqualify. Both 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6333 Document: 010110105211 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 3 
motions were denied. Mr. Clark promptly filed his prose notice 

of appeal. This case is docketed as No. 90-6333. Mr. Clark then 

filed a motion requesting the district court to explain its 

reasons for denying the recusal motion. This motion was denied, 

and Mr. Clark filed a mandamus action with this court, No. 90-578, 

which was denied December 27, 1990. 

We grant Mr. Clark permission to proceed with this appeal in 

forma pauperis. In order that we might reach the merits of his 

appeal, we also grant a certificate of probable cause. 

While the present proceeding is brought under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, we recognize Mr. Clark is proceeding pro 

se and is untrained in law. Applying the rules of liberal and 

reasonable construction of such pleadings, as we must, we will 

treat Mr. Clark's motion as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Title 28, u.s.c. § 2255 does not require a sentencing court 

to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on 

behalf of the same prisoner. A successive motion for similar 

relief that has previously been decided upon the merits need not 

be entertained unless it raises questions not previously presented 

and determined. Stephens v. United States, 341 F.2d 100, 101 

(10th Cir. 1965). We conclude Mr. Clark has failed to raise a 

substantial factual or legal question not previously presented. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6333 Document: 010110105211 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 4 
.,, 

; I 

We must note Mr. Clark's present arguments concerning 

noncompliance with Rule 11 are based upon the 1974 amendments to 

Rule 11, which did not become effective until December 1, 1975. 

Mr. Clark entered his plea on February 12, 1975 and was sentenced 

on March 3, 1975. Therefore, the 1974 amendments are 

inapplicable. 

We also note Mr. Clark's arguments concerning the indictment 

were addressed and rejected by this court in Case No. 85-1340. 

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6333 Document: 010110105211 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 5