Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04156/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Cook
Appellee
Gary W. Deland
Appellee
Michael R. Dulin
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~.u 

Uni11ed States ~rt~ Appeal, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C1rewt 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL R. DULIN, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

GERALD COOK and GARY W. DELAND, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-4156 

(D.C. No. 90-C-411C) 

(D . Utah) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ** 

Petitioner Michael R. Dulin appeals for the second time from 

the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 

u.s.c. § 2254. Initially, the district court dismissed the§ 2254 

petition due to Petitioner's failure to petition the Utah Supreme 

Court for a writ of certiorari following the Utah Court of 

Appeals' affirrnance of the state district court's dismissal of a 

state habeas corpus petition. We agreed with the district court 

that Petitioner had procedurally defaulted on his claim. Dulin v. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court wi thin 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 . 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has d e termined 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-4156 Document: 010110157334 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 1 
Cook, 957 F.2d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 1992 ) . However, Petitioner's 

allegation that his incarceration in a Nevada prison denied him 

access and notice of Utah appellate rules sufficiently alleged 

cause for the procedural default; therefore, we remanded to affo rd 

Petitioner an opportunity to prove these circumstances existed. 

Our remand instructed the district court that 

[i]n determining whether 'cause' exists in this case , 

the district court should inquire into any reasonable 

means by which Petitioner could have received notice of 

the availability of further state appeal. Such means 

might include access to an attorney, access to the Utah 

appellate rules through library l oan, inquiry to the 

Utah appellate system, or any kind of notice received by 

Petitioner in connection with the disposition of his 

state habeas claims .... Petitioner's alleged lack of 

knowledge must be due to a lack of reasonable access to 

the rules as distinguished from basic ignorance of the 

rules of the law. 

Id. at 760. On remand , the district court recognized that 

Petitioner had no access to an attorney, the prison where he was 

incarcerated did not have Utah appellate rules, and he received no 

notice from the Utah Court of Appeals concerning his right to 

petition the Utah Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. 

However, the district court held that Petitioner's failure to 

allege that he attempted to obtain the Utah appellate rules and 

was unsuccessful precluded him from relying on his lack of access 

to such rules to establish cause f or his procedural default. In 

short, the district court ruled that Petitioner had failed to 

avail himself of every reasonable means by which to familiarize 

himself with Utah appellate rules. 

We agree with the district court. In our earlier opinion, we 

specifically noted the possibility of inquiry to the Utah 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-4156 Document: 010110157334 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 2 
appellate system and loans between prison libraries. Petitioner 

did not pursue either of these alternatives and therefore has not 

demonstrated that "'some "objective factor external to the 

defense' impeded his compliance with Utah procedural 

rules II Id. at 760 (quoting McClesky v. Zant, 111 S . Ct. 

1454, 1470 (1991 )). 

Petitioner's attempt to excuse his procedural default by an 

alleged miscarriage of justice is insufficient because Petitioner 

does not contend that he is actually innocent of the charge for 

which he is incarcerated, but rather argues the merits of his 

double jeopardy claim. See Murray v . Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 

(1986) (miscarriage of justice exception would allow procedurally 

defaulted claim to be heard if petitioner establishes a colorable 

claim of factual innocence). 

Finally, Petitioner's argument concerning retroactivity was 

not raised in the district court and will not be heard for the 

first time on appeal. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4156 Document: 010110157334 Date Filed: 01/21/1993 Page: 3