Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02197/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Lindsey
Appellant
Jan Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KENNETH LINDSEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JAN THOMAS, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEALS F 1 L E D 

United Scares Caun of Appeals 

Tei: r.h Cr-:ui~ 

M.AR 21 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2197 

(D.C. No. 89-394-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, 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. 

Kenneth Lindsey, a prisoner in the state court system in New 

Mexico, challenges on federal constitutional grounds the sentence 

he received in state court following his conviction for escape 

from the Roswell Correctional Center. The issues he presents were 

argued in state court, although apparently Lindsey did not file 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: 89-2197 Document: 01019966456 Date Filed: 03/21/1990 Page: 1 
appeal from the denial of relief by the state courts. The state 

government's brief states that he has thereby waived his right to 

have the issue decided on federal habeas review, citing Nutall v. 

Greer, 764 F.2d 462 (7th Cir. 1985). 

The federal district court denied relief o~ another ground, 

that the petition raised no federal constitutional issue. We do 

not consider the effects of petitioner's failure to appeal the 

denial of relief in his state postconviction proceeding because we 

agree with the district court that the petition raises no federal 

constitutional issue . . It complains only of the state's 

interpretation of its own statutes, which is definitely a matter 

for the state court alone. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 

(1984); Davis v. Reynolds, 890 F.2d 1105, 1109 n.3 (10th Cir. 

1989). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2197 Document: 01019966456 Date Filed: 03/21/1990 Page: 2