Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01378/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Henderson
Appellee
Marc A. Simpkins-Bey
Appellant
Duane L. Woodard
Appellee

Document Text:

f 

I FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

MAY 16 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

MARC A. SIMPKINS-BEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RANDY HENDERSON and DUANE L. 

WOODARD, Attorney General, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1378 

(D.C. No. 90-M-1781) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AHO JUDGMENT* 

Before LOG.AR, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

Marc A. Simpkins-Bey appeals the denial of a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. His contentions are 

*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: 90-1378 Document: 010110106518 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 1 
I 

I 

based upon the denial by the Colorado Court of Appeals of his 

motion to file a response brief in excess of twenty pages. He 

claims this denial deprived him of due process, equal protection 

of law, and "full and proper access to the courts." The district 

court found that the petition failed to raise issues cognizable in 

federal habeas corpus. We agree and affirm. 

Petitioner maintains that the state court's page limitation 

required that he use his entire opening brief "to set forth the 

factual basis of his contentions"; therefore, he had to use his 

reply brief to state his legal arguments. Petitioner filed an 

original reply brief of fifty-four pages, but the brief was 

ordered stricken and petitioner was directed to re-file in not 

more than twenty pages. · Petitioner filed motions to exceed the 

twenty pages allowed, but after those motions were denied, he 

filed a brief of thirty-six pages. Again, that brief was stricken 

with an order directing petitioner to re-file in not more than 

twenty pages or submit the case without a reply brief. 

Petitioner did not re-file, but, instead, filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus in the Colorado Supreme Court to compel the 

Court of Appeals to accept his thirty-six page brief. Petitioner 

alleges the writ was denied "without opinion." 

Reduced to its pure form, petitioner's argument is that due 

process entitles him to file a brief of whatever length he 

believes is necessary to argue his case. He cites no authority so 

holding, and we know of none. In the absence of a showing that 

the refusal of his thirty-six page brief had an actual effect upon 

the outcome of his appeal, we can find no reason to conclude 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1378 Document: 010110106518 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 2 
) 

' 

petitioner's federally protected rights were violated. Cf. 

Campbell v. Kincheloe, 829 F.2d 1453, 1467 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. 

denied, 488 U.S. 948 (1988). 

Page limitations are common in both state and appellate 

courts, and they require litigants to structure their briefs to a 

conforming length. Petitioner well knew of the state page 

limitations, but because of his tactical judgment, he decided to 

expend the entire allowance of his opening brief on a statement of 

facts. He made this choice even after the state court allowed him 

to expand his opening brief by 33%. 1 Rather than tailoring his 

statement of facts to fit within the strictures imposed by the 

court, petitioner forged ahead and filed a brief that contained no 

legal argument. That was his choice, and the exercise of that 

choice does not result in a denial of due process. Finally, he 

failed to take advantage of the right to file a twenty page reply 

brief in which he would have had an opportunity to at least cite 

legal authority in support of his position. These circumstances 

render petitioner's contentions fanciful. 

Nonetheless, the Colorado Court of Appeals' striking of his 

thirty-six page brief is collateral to, and in no way affects, the 

criminal judgment providing the basis of his current custody. 

Because federal habeas corpus grants relief only to those held "in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 

the United States," 28 u.s.c. S 2254(a), petitioner's attack on a 

matter collateral to his conviction fails to state a claim for 

1The state rule permits opening briefs of not more than thirty 

pages, but, upon his motion, petitioner was given an additional 

ten pages. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1378 Document: 010110106518 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 3 
. 

I 

relief. Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th 

Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED. 

Tile mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1378 Document: 010110106518 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 4