Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01136/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Gunter
Appellee
Gale A. Norton
Appellee
Theodore Ruark
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

Uniuxl States Court of Appcab 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent~ Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 1 7 1991 

THEODORE RUARK, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRANK GUNTER; and GALE A. NORTON, ) 

Attorney General of the State of ) 

Colorado, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1136 

(D. Colo. No. 91-M-271) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

This is an appeal from a dismissal of a petition for habeas 

corpus. However, we treat the Petitioner's prose pleadings as an 

application for relief under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, and not as a habeas 

petition. This treatment is warranted by the fact that, prior to 

the district court's dismissal, the Petitioner struck all counts 

which would warrant release as a remedy. His only remaining claim 

is that his Fourteenth Amendment _Due Process rights had been 

* 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. 

** 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-1136 Document: 010110091364 Date Filed: 10/17/1991 Page: 1 
abridged by the refusal of the state to grant his request for a 

free record of a trial held over 28 years ago. The relief he 

seeks is the record itself, not release. Accordingly, his 

petition is properly reviewed as one under S 1983, precluding any 

requirement of exhaustion of state remedies. See Monroe v. Pape, 

365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961). 

The Petitioner, evidently, had hoped to use this record to 

attack the 1962 conviction on the grounds of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. The record, however, contains no specific 

allegations of misconduct by his counsel in that proceeding. 

Where, as here, an indigent petitioner makes no 

particularized showing that his rights have been violated, but 

merely makes conclusory allegations to that effect, he has no 

constitutional right to a record for the purposes of making a 

collateral attack on a conviction. See United States v. Malcolm, 

426 U.S. 317, 326-27, 328 (1976) (plurality opinion with Blackmun, 

J., concurring); Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002, 1006-07 (10th Cir. 

1970). 

Additionally, in this case, the Colorado District Court for 

the City and County of Denver has represented that the Petitioner 

was given a copy of the record. Order of June 6, 1990 at 2. We 

have found nothing in the record to contradict this 

representation. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-1136 Document: 010110091364 Date Filed: 10/17/1991 Page: 2