Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06238/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Robert Dale McKinney
Appellant
Dan Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uniced States Court ~f Appeals 

TPnth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT DALE MCKINNEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DAN REYNOLDS, Warden; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ROBERT DALE MCKINNEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

E. ALVIN SCHAY, Appellate Public 

Defender; OKLAHOMA PUBLIC 

DEFENDER SYSTEM, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 2 5 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6238 

(D.C. No. 89-1034-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

No. 89-6334 

(D.C. No. 89-1028-W) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Robert Dale McKinney brought prose actions seeking damages 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) and habeas corpus relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (1982). The basis of both claims is the Oklahoma 

* 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: 89-6238 Document: 01019972102 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 1 
/ 

Appellate Public Defender's negligent failure to pursue McKinney's 

appeal of his state criminal conviction in a timely fashion. In 

McKinney's section 1983 suit, the district court concluded that 

McKinney had failed to allege facts showing the existence of a 

claim under color of state law and dismissed his suit for failure 

to state a claim. In McKinney's habeas action, the district court 

dismissed the suit without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies and denied issuance of a certificate of probable cause. 

The undisputed facts underlying McKinney's claims reveal that 

the public defender miscalculated the date for filing McKinney's 

notice of intent to appeal his criminal conviction in state court, 

and the appeal was originally rejected as untimely. However, when 

the error was discovered, McKinney was granted leave to file an 

appeal out of time and his appeal was apparently reinstated into 

the docket in the same sequence it would have had if it had been 

timely filed. It appears from the papers McKinney has presented 

to this court that his direct criminal appeal is still pending. 

89-6334 

"A prerequisite to any relief under section 1983 is that the 

defendant has acted under color of state law." Barnard v. Young, 

720 F.2d 1188, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 1983). In Polk County v. 

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981), the Supreme Court held that a public 

defender does not act under color of state law for purposes of 

section 1983 when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as 

counsel in a criminal case. Here the basis of McKinney's claim is 

his counsel's negligent failure to file a timely notice of appeal, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6238 Document: 01019972102 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 2 
/ 

a function unarguably encompassed by Polk County. To the extent 

McKinney argues that his public defender conspired with state 

officials, his conclusory allegations are clearly insufficient to 

state a claim. See Hammond v. Bales, 843 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th 

Cir. 1988). 

McKinney has moved this court for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal of the dismissal of his section 1983 claim. As 

set out above, we conclude that McKinney has failed to make a 

rational (reasoned) argument on the law and the facts in support 

of the issue raised on appeal and the motion is therefore denied. 

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 

305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

89-6238 

Exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite to consideration of a claim for relief under section 2254. See Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 42 U.S.C. § 2254(b} (1982). An 

applicant for habeas relief has not exhausted his state remedies 

until he has presented his claim to the highest state court having 

jurisdiction to hear it. See Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 4 

(1981); Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 616 (10th Cir. 1988). 

McKinney admits that his direct criminal appeal is now pending 

before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and he has 

therefore failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of section 

2254. 

McKinney has applied to this court for a certificate of 

probable cause. We deny the application, concluding that McKinney 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6238 Document: 01019972102 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 3 
has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of an 

important federal right by demonstrating that the issue raised is 

debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issue 

differently, or that the question deserves further proceedings. 

See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

McKinney's motion for introduction of new evidence is denied. 

We cannot consider evidence on appeal that has not been presented 

to the district court. 

The mandates in Nos. 89-6238 and 89-6334 shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered For The Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6238 Document: 01019972102 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 4