Walling v. State of Kansas, (10th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits

Linked as:

Text




UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TERRY FLOYD WALLING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

vs.



STATE OF KANSAS
,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-3154

(D.C. No. 98-3054-GTV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
name="txt*">(*)


Before PORFILIO,
name="9">KELLY, and HENRY,

Circuit Judges.(**)

Mr. Walling, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals

from the district court's dismissal of his notice of removal. It appears from the

record that after being denied state post-conviction relief and filing a notice of

appeal, Mr. Walling sought to remove his state action to federal court. The

district court dismissed the notice/action on the grounds that Mr. Walling was not

a defendant that could remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), see

Shamrock Oil &

Gas Corp. v. Sheets
, 313 U.S. 100, 104-07 (1941); Conner v. Salzinger, 457 F.2d

1241, 1243 (3d Cir. 1972), nor could he remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c).

Merely because Mr. Walling was once a defendant in the state criminal action

does not make him one for purposes of state post-conviction relief and removal.

See Okot v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986); Attorney General

ex rel.

Mertz v. Yeager
, 464 F.2d 553, 554 (3d Cir. 1972).

We GRANT Mr. Walling's motion to supplement the record on appeal filed

February 8, 1999. This case is legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES

Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

**. After examining the briefs and the

appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.


ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2014, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company