Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
No. 05-6146
v.
MILLICENT NEWTON-EMBRY,
(W. D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the 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)(2). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Ms. Cloyd, who appears pro se, is currently an inmate in Oklahoma state
prison and challenges her state court sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Police
officers executed a no-knock warrant that was based on suspicion of drugs and
weapons at Ms. Cloyds home. After the officer entered her home, Ms. Cloyd
fired several gunshots at one of the officers. A jury found Ms. Cloyd guilty of
shooting with intent to kill, intent to manufacture a controlled substance,
decision. See Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). In
response to our request, Ms. Cloyd argues to this court that she should be excused
from this requirement because (1) she is a pro se litigant, and (2) because the jailhouse lawyer who was helping her with her case was paroled and took Ms.
Cloyds legal files with her, with the promise that she would continue to help Ms.
Cloyd. We do not hold pro se litigants to the same exacting standards as
represented litigants. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
And in support of her claim regarding the jail-house lawyer, Ms. Cloyd presented
the affidavits of three fellow inmates, each of whom supports Ms. Cloyds
experience with the jail-house lawyer. Finally, we note that the rules governing
district court review of the magistrate judges recommendation instructs the
district court to limit its de novo review to any portion of the magistrate judges
disposition to which specific written objection has been made . . . . United
States v. One Parcel of Real Property, with Buildings, Appurtenances,
Improvements, and Contents, Known as: 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). In this case, the district court, even without
any objection from Ms. Cloyd, conducted a de novo review of the record and
adopted the magistrate judges recommendation. Order, supra, at 1. Because
Ms. Cloyd is a pro se litigant and she has provided a reason to excuse her failure
to object, and because the district court on its own accord conducted a de novo
-3-
pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-5-