Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06081/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06081-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
INS, DD, New Orleans
Appellee
Ademola Michael Ogunleye
Appellant

Document Text:

, FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

TPNh rfrn1it 

,JUL 2 G 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ADEMOLA MICHAEL OGUNLEYE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

INS, DD, NEW ORLEANS; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, State of Oklahoma, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-6081 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-120-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Ademola Michael Ogunleye, who is being held by 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Louisiana pending 

deportation, brought suit in Oklahoma to challenge his conviction 

* 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: 91-6081 Document: 010110129481 Date Filed: 07/26/1991 Page: 1 
... 

in Oklahoma state court on a felony charge that apparently is being used as the basis for his deportation. The district court 

granted a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal, but denied a certificate of probable cause. The district 

court ruled that petitioner was not in custody within the meaning 

of the requirements for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 because his one year suspended sentence on the 1985 

Oklahoma conviction had expired. It also held that being in the 

custody of the INS pending deportation was not "in custody" within 

the meaning of the habeas statute. Petitioner contends that the 

INS's use of his conviction is sufficient custody within the 

meaning of Malena v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989). 

We do not consider this issue because it appears that 

petitioner never perfected an appeal from his state court 

conviction in the courts of Oklahoma. The record shows that while 

he filed a notice of appeal, he never followed through, and the 

case was never docketed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied a late appeal, as we 

construe its opinion, on the ground of procedural default. We 

note that the United States Supreme Court has recently overruled 

Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963), and treats failure to perfect an 

appeal as a procedural default not challengeable under federal 

habeas except under a cause and prejudice standard. See Coleman 

v. Thompson, 59 U.S.L.W. 4789, 4796 (1991). Here petitioner has 

not shown sufficient cause to excuse the default. Therefore, 

petitioner can make no argument on the facts or the law sufficient 

to make a substantive showing of the denial of a federal right 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6081 Document: 010110129481 Date Filed: 07/26/1991 Page: 2 
necessary for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 

(1983). We dismiss the appeal. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6081 Document: 010110129481 Date Filed: 07/26/1991 Page: 3