James Calvin Ward v. Mark McKinna Warden & Attorney Gen. for the State of Colorado, 56 F.3d 78 (10th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
James Calvin Ward v. Mark McKinna Warden & Attorney Gen. for the State of Colorado, 56 F.3d 78 (10th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Konte v. Oklahoma City City of (okwd, 2020-01-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Konte v. Oklahoma City City of
W.D. Okla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Peoples v. Finney County Board of Commissioners, 1995 WL 326131, *2 , 56 F.3d 78 (June 1, 1995).
discussed Cited "see" Snodderly v. Kansas
D. Kan. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Peoples v. Finney Board of Commissioners, 56 F.3d 78 , 1995 WL 326131, *2 (10th Cir.1995) (Table) (“This circuit, and district courts within this circuit, have consistently held that the appropriate limitations period in Kansas for a section 1983 action is the two-year period established for actions .for “injury to the rights of another” contained in section 60—513(a)(4).”) (citing Baker v. Board of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 630 (10th Cir.1993)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Calvin Ward
v.
Mark McKinna Warden and Attorney General for the State of Colorado
95-1025.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 24, 1995.
56 F.3d 78
Published

56 F.3d 78
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

James Calvin WARD, Petitioner,
v.
Mark McKINNA, Warden; and Attorney General for the State of
Colorado, Respondents.

No. 95-1025.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 24, 1995.

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

MOORE

1

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. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner claims the district court erred because he "did not ask the District to take jurisdiction, he asked for deferred jurisdiction and stated in his petition that he must give the state an opportunity to pass on or correct alleged constitutional violations."

3

Because petitioner admits his failure to exhaust, this appeal is without substance. There is no provision for "deferred jurisdiction" in federal habeas corpus. After he exhausts the remedies available to him under state law, petitioner can still utilize the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 2254 if they are needed. The dismissal of his petition does not affect his right to pursue that remedy.

4

AFFIRMED.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470