Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05233/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee
Dennis D. Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL:i:..D 

United States Co~rt (?f Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

DENNIS D. WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 14 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5233 

(D.C. No. 92-C-514-E) 

(N. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Dennis Dean Wright, a state prisoner appearing prose, 

brought this petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254 (1988), asserting six constitutional errors arising from his 

state court convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to 

commit murder. The district court dismissed the petition as an 

*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: 92-5233 Document: 010110200938 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 1 
abuse of the writ. Wright appeals and requests that we appoint 

appellate counsel. We grant Wright's motions for a certificate of 

probable cause and affirm the district court's dismissal as an 

abuse of the writ. We deny Wright's motion to appoint appellate 

counsel as moot. 

The record reveals that Wright filed a prior federal habeas 

petition on October 11, 1990, contending that 1) he had 

ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, 

and 2) that certain trial testimony was improperly admitted. That 

petition for relief was denied by the District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma on March 25, 1991, and it was 

apparently not appealed. 

On March 9, 1992, Wright filed this second petition for 

federal habeas corpus relief, alleging six constitutional claims, 

four claims asserting ineffectiveness of trial and appellate 

counsel with respect to issues not raised in the first federal 

habeas, one claim asserting a denial of due process and equal 

protection, and one seeking to assert a claim under Grady v. 

Corbin, 110 S. Ct. 2084 (1990). The district court held that this 

petition constituted an abuse of the writ, concluding that Wright 

had not satisfied the cause-and-prejudice standard applicable to 

second or subsequent petitions under McClesky v. Zant, 111 S. Ct. 

1454, 1470 (1991). 

When a prisoner files a second or subsequent application, the government bears the burden of pleading abuse 

of the writ. The government satisfies this burden if, 

with clarity and particularity, it notes petitioner' s 

prior writ history, identifies the claims that appear 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5233 Document: 010110200938 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 2 
for the first time, and alleges that petitioner has 

abused the writ. The burden to disprove abuse then 

becomes petitioner's. To excuse his failure to raise 

the claim earlier, he must show cause for failing to 

raise it and prejudice therefrom as those concepts have 

been defined in our procedural default decisions. The 

petitioner's opportunity to meet the burden of cause and 

prejudice will not include an evidentiary hearing if the 

district court determines as a matter of law that 

petitioner cannot satisfy the standard. If petitioner 

cannot show cause, the failure to raise the claim in an 

earlier petition may nonetheless be excused if he or she 

can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would 

result from a failure to entertain the claim. 

On appeal, Wright asserts that he is entitled to have his 

second petition heard on the merits for three reasons. He 

contends he can show cause for his failure to raise these claims 

in his first federal habeas both because of the ineffectiveness of 

his trial and appellate counsel, and because of an intervening 

change in the law. Wright also contends that he has made a 

colorable showing of factual innocence so as to fall within the 

fundamental miscarriage of justice exception to the cause and 

prejudice analysis recognized in McClesky, 111 S. Ct. at 1470-71. 

We find no merit in these arguments. 

First, we discern no reason why the alleged ineffectiveness 

of Wright's counsel during his state court trial and direct appeal 

establishes cause for Wright's failure to raise in his first 

federal habeas petition the claims he now asserts in his second 

one. The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment does not 

mandate that counsel be appointed for habeas petitioners. See 

Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2566 (1991 ). Therefore, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5233 Document: 010110200938 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 3 
Wright is not excused from raising the issues by the lack of 

counsel to help him prepare the first petition. Second, we point 

out that the intervening change in the law upon which Wright 

relies, the Supreme Court's decision in Grady v. Corbin, 110 S. 

Ct . 2084 (1990), was handed down on May 29, 1990, before Wright 

filed his first federal habeas on October 11, 1990. That decision 

was thus available and could have been raised in the first 

petition. Finally, we find no evidence in this record, other than 

Wright's bare assertion, tending to make a colorable showing of 

his factual innocence. Accordingly, we conclude that the petition 

was properly dismissed as an abuse of the writ. 1 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

1 Wright has called the court's attention to the recent case of 

Dawan v. Lockhart, 980 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1992), which he asserts 

is relevant to his claim that his counsel was ineffective due to a 

conflict of interest. However, Dawan did not involve a second or 

subsequent petition and thus presented no issue concerning abuse 

of the writ. 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 92-5233 Document: 010110200938 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 4