Eldridge v. Oliver ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 21, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
CLINTON T. ELDRIDGE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 16-1094
v. (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02503-LTB)
D. Colo.
J. OLIVER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Clinton Eldridge’s pro se request for a
certificate of appealability (“COA”). Eldridge seeks a COA so he can appeal the
district court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1243-44
(10th Cir. 2015) (concluding that Eldridge, whose convictions were in the District
of Columbia Superior Court, is a state prisoner for purposes of § 2253(c)(1)’s
certificate-of-appealability requirement). Because Eldridge has not “made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this
court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
A partial history of Eldridge’s many attempts to challenge the execution of
his sentences (or the validity thereof) is set out in this court’s opinion in Eldridge,
791 F.3d at 1241-43. In the instant case, the district court concluded as follows:
(1) Eldridge’s § 2241 petition challenged the validity of his criminal sentences,
not the execution of those sentences; (2) Eldridge must proceed with such a
challenge in the District of Columbia Superior Court pursuant to D.C. Code Ann.
§ 23-110(g), unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective, Swain v. Pressley,
430 U.S. 372 (1977); and (3) the mere failure to obtain relief in the District of
Columbia Superior Court did not demonstrate the remedy set out in § 23-110(g)
was ineffective or inadequate. Because Eldridge failed to demonstrate the remedy
set out in § 23-110(g) was inadequate or ineffective, the district court concluded
it lacked jurisdiction over Eldridge’s § 2241 habeas petition. Swain, 430 U.S. at
379-84.
When the decision appealed involves a procedural ruling, this court will not
issue a COA unless “the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000). Because the district court’s jurisdictional ruling is indisputably
correct, Eldridge is not entitled to a COA. Furthermore, because Eldridge has
failed to present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in
-2-
support of the issues raised on appeal, he is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis. DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
Eldridge is reminded that he must, therefore, immediately remit the full appellate
filing fee.
For those reasons set out above, Eldridge’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED, his request for a COA is DENIED, and this appeal is
DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-