Sidney A. Potts v. United States of Am. T.R. Kindt, Warden, 996 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Sidney A. Potts v. United States of Am. T.R. Kindt, Warden, 996 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
64 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Casaus v. Hatch (nmd, 2023-10-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Casaus v. Hatch
D.N.M. · 2023 · confidence medium
Fairchild, 579 F.3d at 1141 (“The state bears the burden of proving the adequacy of a procedural bar as it is ‘undoubtedly in a better position to establish the regularity, consistency and efficiency with which it has applied [its own rules] in the past.’” (quoting Hooks, 184 F.3d at 1217 ); Tryon, 81 F.4th at 1139; Bramlett v. Champion, 28 F. App’x 868, 873 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that the respondent’s “vague assertion” that a claim was procedurally barred was “insufficient to preclude consideration of the merits of” the petitioner’s claim); Thompson v. Champion, 996 F…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eldin v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance
N.M. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In King v. Federal Insurance Co., 788 F.Supp. 506 (D.Kan.1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 311 *834 (10th Cir.1993), the court ruled that the insurer must prove that the insured's breach "caused substantial prejudice to either the [insurer's] ability to investigate [the insured's] claim or to defend itself in this action." Id.
discussed Cited "see" Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
D. Utah · 1996 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Sack v. Wagoner County, Oklahoma, 996 F.2d 311 (Table), 1993 WL 220593 (10th Cir.1993) (No. 92-7085, 92-7091) (unpublished disposition): The district court may entertain a rule 60(b) motion to reopen a decision that has been affirmed on appeal without obtaining leave from the appellate court.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aramburu v. The Boeing Company
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Sanchez v. Philip Morris, Inc., 992 F.2d 244, 247-48 (10th Cir.1993) (stating that Title VII does not protect against adverse employment decisions made on such factors as favoritism or mistake); see also Parker v. Housing Authority of Kansas City, Kansas, No. 92-3136, 996 F.2d 311 , 1993 WL 207441, *4 (10th Cir. June 9, 1993) (unpublished) (stating personality conflicts not covered).
Sidney A. Potts
v.
United States of America T.R. Kindt, Warden
92-6387.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jun 18, 1993.
996 F.2d 311
Published

996 F.2d 311

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.

Sidney A. POTTS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; T.R. Kindt, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-6387.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 18, 1993.

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

McKAY, Chief Judge.

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees is granted; Petitioner's Motion for Order to Comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(a),[2] Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel, and Motion for Expediated Consideration are denied.

3

The judgment is AFFIRMED for the reasons given in the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Howland.

1

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

2

Rule 23(a) prohibits the transfer of custody of a habeas corpus petitioner pending review of the petition, except by order of the court rendering the decision. The purpose of the rule is to prevent officials from frustrating a prisoner's efforts at obtaining habeas corpus relief by physically removing the prisoner from the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the petition is pending. Hammer v. Meachum, 691 F.2d 958, 961 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983). While it certainly appears that prison officials violated Rule 23(a), the transfer does not affect this court's ability to review the denial of the petition, and the Petitioner suffered no prejudice warranting a grant of his motion