Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03201/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Joel Evans
Appellant
Gary L. Henman
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

THOMAS JOEL EVANS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY L. HENMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG 2 5 1992 

EOBI!RT L. HOEcy~:, Cle:!"l: . ---'--

No. 92-3201 

(D. C. No. 92-CV-3203) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Evans, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of his 

petition for habeas corpus. 

forma pauperis and affirm. 

we grant permission to proceed in 

* 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: 92-3201 Document: 010110287344 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Evans was convicted of a conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute 500 pounds of marijuana and of using a 

telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony. Mr. Evans 

appealed his conviction asserting: (1) improper joinder of 

defendants and offenses; (2) denial of a hearing outside the 

presence of the jury; (3) improper joinder of multiple 

conspiracies; (4) incomplete criminal conspiracy; (5) error in 

overruling second motion for new trial on newly discovered 

evidence; and (6) ineffective assistance of counsel. In case No. 

89-3000, we affirmed Mr. Evans's conviction and left open for 

disposition certain issues under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. No. 89-3000 

(Feb. 2 8, 19 9 0) . 

Mr. Evans then filed his first petition under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 raising as issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; 

(2) newly discovered evidence; (3) doubling of sentence; and (4) 

reduction of the conspiracy and telephone charges. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, relief was granted in part and the trial 

court resentenced Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans did not appeal this 

decision, stating "I did not want to wait for a year and a half to 

see if I could get the denied part overturned." 

Mr. Evans then filed his second habeas petition alleging his 

conviction was obtained by the use of evidence gained pursuant to 

an unconstitutional search and seizure. The district court denied 

relief and we affirmed. See No. 91-3164 (Aug. 5, 1991). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3201 Document: 010110287344 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 2
Mr. Evans then filed his third habeas petition alleging: (1) 

an illegal sentence in violation of both the ex post facto clause 

and the due process clause; (2) insufficient evidence; (3) 

evidence admitted in violation of the federal rules; (4) the 

alteration of evidence; and (5) violation of the Speedy Trial Act. 

Relief was denied by the trial court on the basis of an abuse of 

the writ. Mr. Evans did not appeal this decision. 

Mr. Evans has now filed his fourth habeas petition in the 

district court alleging the same grounds for relief set forth in 

his third petition for habeas relief. This petition was 

predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

relief stating: 

The district court denied 

Petitioner acknowledges that he has raised the same 

allegations of error in three unsuccessful attempts to 

obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court finds 

no basis for concluding that the relief available under 

§ 2255 was inadequate or ineffective for testing the 

legality of petitioner's confinement, and thus finds no 

jurisdiction for considering the present petition. 

Mr. Evans appeals this decision pro se raising the same 

arguments advanced before the trial court. 

responded. 

Appellee has not 

At some point litigation must cease. Our justice system does 

not permit a defendant to repeatedly advance the same issues nor 

does it permit a defendant the right to advance each new theory in 

separate actions. Mr. Evans has been given numerous opportunities 

to raise his contentions and he has done so. In fact, Mr. Evans 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3201 Document: 010110287344 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 3
has previously raised the same issues he is now attempting to 

raise. The trial court held Mr. Evans's third habeas petition 

was an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus undoubtedly reasoning 

that Mr. Evans had the prior opportunity to raise these issues and 

failed to justify why these issues were not previously raised. 

Mr. Evans is not now able to raise these same issues again. They 

were raised and ruled upon, and Mr. Evans accepted the decision 

when he failed to appeal. No one is entitled to litigate the same 

issues time and time again. All litigation must eventually end, 

and Mr. Evans's litigation is no exception. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3201 Document: 010110287344 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 4