Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03325/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul W. Clark
Appellee
Gary Lee McColpin
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L 1.) Unit.ed States Coo of Appealr 

GARY LEE McCOLPIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PAUL W. CLARK, District Court Judge, 

Defendant -Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth Circuit 

DECO 11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3325 

(D.C. No. 92-3228-S) 

(Dist. of Kansas) 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Gary Lee Mccolpin (Mccolpin), appearing prose, appeals from 

the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

* 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: 92-3325 Document: 010110149222 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 1 
' 

as frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

sought injunctive relief against defendant-appellee, 

Clark, (Judge Clark), presiding judge of the Eighteenth 

District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas. 

Mccolpin 

Paul W. 

Judicial 

Mccolpin is an inmate of the Lansing Correctional Facility, 

Lansing, Kansas. He was convicted by a jury in the District Court 

of Sedgwick County, Kansas, and sentenced for kidnapping, 

enticement of a child and attempted indecent liberties with a 

child. 

In his complaint filed in the federal district court in this 

action, Mccolpin alleged that Judge Clark denied his writ of 

habeas corpus filed pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 on 

December 3, 1991, in Case No. 91-C-2986, because the Kansas 

"courts permit criminal appeals only on condition that the 

plaintiff follow the local rules and statutes governing such 

appeals." (File, Complaint of June 19, 1992, p. 2). Mccolpin 

complained that "[T]he system does not establish an appeal as of 

rights, but only a conditional appeal subject to dismissal if the 

state rules are violated. Defendant concludes that if plaintiff 

(Mccolpin) has no appeal as of right, he has no right to counsel -

or to effective assistance of counsel on his conditional 

appeal." Id . Mccolpin sought a preliminary injunction to require 

Judge Clark to provide him (Mccolpin) with a full due process 

opportunity to present evidence and argument in order to 

demonstrate that his constitutional rights were violated during 

his criminal trial. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3325 Document: 010110149222 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 2 
' 

Mccolpin 

forma pauperis. 

to proceed in 

was permitted to proceed in the district court in 

The federal district court denied Mccolpin leave 

forma pauperis on appeal, however, and found that 

McColpin's appeal "is legally frivolous and is not taken in good 

faith." (File, Order of September 15, 1992, p. 1). We grant 

McColpin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but affirm the 

district court's denial of a certificate of probable cause. 

On appeal, Mccolpin contends that the district court erred in 

dismissing his 42 U. S . C. § 1983 complaint against Judge Clark. He 

requests that this court remand with instructions that Mccolpin 

be afforded a full opportunity to present evidence and arguments 

on his complaint. 

The record is barren of any pleadings or assertion that 

Mccolpin sought to appeal Judge Clark's dismissal of his habeas 

corpus petition. The federal district court pertinently and 

correctly observed that "the court is further persuaded the 

appropriate remedy for plaintiff is to appeal the dismissal of his 

motion for post conviction relief to the Kansas Court of Appeals." 

(File, Memorandum and Order, August 4, 1992, p. 2). We agree. 

Mccolpin has available relief in the nature of appeal from Judge 

Clark's order of dismissal. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507(d). (" . 

. A prisoner in custody ... claiming the right to be released 

upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the 

constitution or laws of the United States, or the constitution or 

laws of the State of Kansas ... or is otherwise subject to 

collateral attack, may at any time move the court which imposed 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3325 Document: 010110149222 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 3 
.. _ 

the sentence An appeal may be taken to the appellate 

court as provided by law .... " (underlining supplied). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a court may dismiss a case if it 

is "satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." This 

section applies to prose complaints. See LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 

F.2d 1117, 1118 (10th Cir. 1991). Appellate review must focus on 

whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing a 

complaint. Denton v. Hernandez, 

Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 

112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992); 

1475 (10th Cir. 1987). The 

district court observed that Mccolpin had an access of appeal from 

Judge Clark's order of dismissal pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-

1507(d). We agree. 

Furthermore, treating McColpin's requested relief against 

Judge Clark as essentially in the nature of mandamus, the court 

denied relief. Again, we agree. Mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy, which should be limited to exceptional cases. Kerr v. 

United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Sanderson v. 

Winner, 507 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 

U.S. 914 (1975). Courts will entertain mandamus petitions where 

the district court acted without jurisdiction or clearly abused 

its discretion, constituting a usurpation of power. In Re Dalton, 

733 F.2d 710, 716 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1185 

(1985). And, particularly pertinent here, a petitioner seeking 

mandamus relief must demonstrate that there are no other adequate 

means to obtain the relief requested. Allied Chern. Corp. v. 

Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); Raines v. Block, 798 F.2d 

377, 380 (10th Cir. 1986). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3325 Document: 010110149222 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 4 
We concur in the district court's denial of a certificate of 

probable cause on appeal and we AFFIRM the district court's order 

of dismissal. 

-5-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3325 Document: 010110149222 Date Filed: 12/01/1992 Page: 5