Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06113/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Dewayne Daniels
Appellant
State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appea.Js 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tench Cirruit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GERALD DEWAYNE DANIELS, ) 

AUG - 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

STATE 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

OF OKLAHOMA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6113 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-336-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Gerald Dewayne Daniels appeals prose from the 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court 

granted Daniels leave to proceed in forma pauperis; therefore he 

may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further 

authorization. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 10th Cir. R. 24.1. 

Daniels raises two issues for review. First, he contends 

that Oklahoma denied him due process and/or bail in violation of 

his constitutional rights. Second, Daniels argues that the trial 

court should have held an evidentiary hearing concerning his 

* 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 1not materially 

assist the de!ermination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6113 Document: 010110040726 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 1 
unlawful arrest, his denial of bail and his right to a speedy 

trial. 

Daniels's complaint named only the state of Oklahoma. He 

therefore has not stated a cause of action cognizable under 

S 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 S. Ct. 

2304, 2312 (1989) (neither a State nor its officials acting in 

their official capacities are "persons" subject to suit under 

S 1983) . 

Affording Daniels's prose complaint the liberal construction 

to which it is entitled under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-

21 (1972), we conclude that it constitutes a challenge to the fact 

of incarceration. Hence, we view Daniela's complaint as a habeas 

corpus action under 28 u.s.c. § 2254(b). See Praiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, because Daniels has 

not exhausted his state remedies, his habeas action is not ripe 

for federal review at this time. See id. at 490. We therefore 

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district 

court in its order of dismissal. See rec. vol. I Doc. 3. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6113 Document: 010110040726 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 2