Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06268/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Dennis Cox
Appellee
Robert Dale McKinney
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUniJsJtn L ~Jlppeal! 'J',tt& ~l'CUft 

ROBERT DALE McKINNEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DENNIS COX, Parole Officer; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees . 

JAN O 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6268 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-760-C) 

(W.D. Okla .) 

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 . The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

Robert Dale McKinney appeals an order of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissing his 

petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2254 for 

failure to satisfy "frequent filer" preconditions. We ex erc ise 

jurisdiction under 28 U. S . C. § 1291 and 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 establishi ng the doctrines of the law of 

the case, r e s judicata, or collater al estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6268 Document: 010110155966 Date Filed: 01/06/1993 Page: 1 
In 1988, McKinney was convicted of assault and battery in the 

District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. After numerous 

attempts to obtain federal habeas corpus relief while his direct 

state appeal was still pending, the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma established certain 

preconditions before McKinney could file future petitions. 

McKinney filed this petition on April 28, 1992, asserting that the 

state criminal court lacked jurisdiction over him and that he 

received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court 

referred it to a Magistrate Judge, who concluded that McKinney had 

neither satisfied his preconditions nor exhausted his Sixth 

Amendment claim. The district court, after de novo review, 

adopted the Magistrate's findings and dismissed McKinney's 

petition. On motion for reconsideration, McKinney argued that the 

preconditions applied only t o in forma pauperis filings, whereas 

he had paid the filing fee for the instant petition. The district 

court, however, found that the preconditions applied to all of 

McKinney's future habeas petitions, in forma pauperis o r 

o therwise . 

As to the scope of McKinney's preconditions, we agree that 

McKinney must satisfy those requirements in all of his habeas 

petitions, in forma pauperis or otherwise . The court c l e arly 

possessed authority to regulate any of McKinney's future 

petitions. See Cotner v . Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 , 902 - 03 (10th Cir. 

1 986 ) (affirming habeas preconditions) . While McKinney's 

preconditions arose out of his in forma pauperis abuses, they were 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-6268 Document: 010110155966 Date Filed: 01/06/1993 Page: 2 
made applicable to "future actions," not "future in forrna pauperis 

actions." We decline to impose such a limitation at this time. 

Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forrna 

pauperis on appeal and for Certificate of Probable Cause are 

GRANTED. The order of the district court dismissing his habeas 

corpus petitions for failure to satisfy preconditions is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 3 -

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6268 Document: 010110155966 Date Filed: 01/06/1993 Page: 3