Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02118/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cowley
Respondent
James L. Martin
Petitioner

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stlltt5 Coore of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY 15 1990 

JAMES L. MARTIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2118 

(D.C. No. 88-042-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner-appellant commenced the underlying proceedings 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254, alleging that his convictions were 

infirm because: (1) they were the product of involuntary guilty 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the T~nth 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: 88-2118 Document: 01019970127 Date Filed: 05/15/1990 Page: 1 
pleas and (2) he had been denied the assistance of counsel both at 

the time statements were given to police and during the subsequent 

judicial proceedings. 

Responding, the state sought dismissal pursuant to Rule 9 of 

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States 

District Courts. In support of its motion to dismiss, the state 

alleged: (1) the convictions were ten years old; (2) the trial 

judge was no longer on the bench; (3) it was "doubtful" that the 

prosecuting attorney would be able to recall pertinent facts; and 

(4) no transcript was available. 

The district court found that the state would be prejudiced 

in its ability to respond to the petition, and that petitioner had 

failed to explain why he had waited to seek post-conviction relief 

in the state courts. 

Delay alone is not sufficient to dismiss a petition pursuant 

to Rule 9. Dismissal under that rule may be appropriate upon a 

particularized showing that the state is prejudiced in its ability 

to respond to the petition. Bowen v. Murphy, 698 F.2d 381 (10th 

Cir. 1983). Once the state has made a prima facie case of 

prejudice, petitioner must be accorded an opportunity to respond, 

by either disputing the existence of prejudice or showing that for 

some of the time between conviction and commencement of habeas 

corpus litigation, he could not have had knowledge of the grounds 

for relief. 

In its Rule 9 motion, the state vaguely asserts only that the 

trial judge left the bench, the prosecutor might not be able to 

recall the case, and no transcript is in existence. At most, 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2118 Document: 01019970127 Date Filed: 05/15/1990 Page: 2 
those circumstances are only potential difficulties which may 

impair the state's ability to respond to the petition. Those 

allegations fall far short of the particularized showing that is 

necessary to prove prejudice which is required by Rule 9. 

There is no indication with respect to the state's ability to 

respond to that part of the petition which alleges that petitioner 

was denied assistance of counsel at the time an allegedly 

involuntary confession was given to police. Further, a transcript 

may not affirmatively show whether petitioner made an intelligent 

and understanding waiver of his constitutional rights. The facts 

on which at least some of petitioner's claims are predicated may 

be outside the record. 

We conclude that the state did not meet its burden of making 

a particularized showing that it was prejudiced in its ability to 

respond to the allegations of the petitioner. Under the 

circumstances of this case, an evidentiary hearing may be 

necessary, particularly, where, as here, a Rule 9 defense may be 

intertwined with the merits of petitioner's allegations. See 

United States v. Gutierrez, 839 F.2d 648, 652 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Petitioner's allegations of constitutional violations, if 

factually supported, are serious. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 

U. S. 335 (1963); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). If, on 

remand, the state satisfies its burden, the district court should 

require 

Equitable 

nevertheless determine whether equitable considerations 

consideration of the petition on the merits. 

considerations may preclude dismissal of an otherwise meritorious 

petition, notwithstanding the state's Rule 9 motions. See Hannon 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2118 Document: 01019970127 Date Filed: 05/15/1990 Page: 3 
. 

v. Maschner, 845 F.2d 1553, 1557 (10th Cir. 1988). The district 

court should consider appointing counsel to represent petitioner 

on remand. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is VACATED, and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2118 Document: 01019970127 Date Filed: 05/15/1990 Page: 4