eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 1999-02

Walling v. State of Kansas ( 1999 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                           F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 18 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TERRY FLOYD WALLING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
vs.                                                     No. 98-3154
(D.C. No. 98-3054-GTV)
STATE OF KANSAS,                                         (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, 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
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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
2