Slip Opinions Home
Page | Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |    Download WordPerfect version (20993 bytes)     Download RTF version (17479 bytes)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT


PATRICK C. LYNN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

LARRY MCCLAIN; STATE OF KANSAS, Carla Stovall,

Respondents-Appellees.


PATRICK C. LYNN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL NELSON, Warden, El Dorado Correctional Facility; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS,

Respondents-Appellees.


PATRICK C. LYNN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.



No. 00-3158

(D.C. No. 00-CV-3132)

(D. Kan.)

No. 00-3338

(D.C. No. 00-CV-3155-DES)

(D. Kan.)

No. 01-3036

(D.C. No. 01-CV-3005-DES)

(D. Kan.)
WILLIAM A. CLEAVER, Johnson County District Court Judge; and THE STATE OF KANSAS,

Respondents-Appellees.


ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)


Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.


After examining the appellate record, and the briefs filed in case numbers 00-3158 and 00-3338, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

General Background

Petitioner Patrick C. Lynn was convicted in a Kansas state court in November 1996 of aggravated kidnaping, aggravated burglary, aggravated sodomy, and rape, and was sentenced to state prison in January 1997. Lynn has not completed the state court appeal process. In fact, the Kansas Court of Appeals has remanded his case to the state district court for resentencing. Nevertheless, Lynn, acting pro se, has filed the three above-captioned habeas cases in federal court, as well as numerous and unsuccessful civil actions in federal and state courts.(1) The habeas cases are before this court on Lynn's applications for certificates of appealability (COA). As a matter of judicial efficiency, we have companioned the cases for purposes of disposition.

Case No. 00-3158

Although Lynn v. McClain, No. 00-3158, is styled as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2241, 2254, it does not directly challenge the constitutionality of Lynn's criminal proceedings. In his petition, Lynn sought relief from judgments entered in his federal and state civil rights cases, based on a contention of newly-discovered evidence of fraud on the part of a state court judge.

The district court carefully parsed Lynn's claims and determined that: (1) it lacked habeas jurisdiction because Lynn was not in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack, see Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989); (2) absent habeas jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal review of the state civil judgments, see Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); and (3) a habeas action may not be used either (a) to attack 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits a prisoner's ability to proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions after the dismissal of three such actions on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (b) to evade restrictions imposed in Lynn's cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore denied all requested relief and dismissed the action.

To qualify for a COA, a movant must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), showing that his issues are debatable among jurists of reason, subject to a different resolution on appeal, or deserving of further proceedings. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000). Here, we conclude that Lynn has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.

Case No. 00-3338

In Lynn v. Nelson, No. 00-3338, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Lynn sought habeas corpus review of alleged constitutional error in his criminal trial. He also requested a stay of the resentencing proceeding, contending that the assigned state court judge would not provide him with a fair and unbiased hearing. The district court determined that federal intervention in ongoing state proceedings was not warranted. It therefore denied the stsq M tion on appeits a prR