Edwards v. State of Oklahoma , 327 F. App'x 75 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 11, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY JOE EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 09-6013
(D. Ct. No. 5:08-CV-00995-R)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Gregory Joe Edwards, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s denial of
his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We take jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, DENY Mr. Edwards’s request for a COA, and DISMISS this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Edwards filed this habeas petition while incarcerated at the Oklahoma County
Detention Center. He named only the State of Oklahoma as the respondent. The state
filed a motion to dismiss, contending that it was not a proper respondent. Mr. Edwards
did not respond to the motion. The magistrate issued a report and recommendation
agreeing with the state’s position. The magistrate further advised against substituting the
proper respondent due to the unintelligible nature of the petition.
Mr. Edwards then filed an “Application for Immediate Release,” which the district
court construed as an objection to the report and recommendation. This filing, however,
did not address who should be named as the respondent; indeed, the district court noted
that it appeared entirely unrelated to the matters raised in the habeas petition. Thus, the
court agreed with both of the magistrate’s recommendations and dismissed the petition
for failure to name the proper party respondent and for being unintelligible. Mr. Edwards
appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
A habeas petitioner may not appeal from the denial of his petition without first
obtaining a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). We will issue a COA “only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2).
When the district court denies the petitioner’s claim on the merits, “[t]he petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
When the petition is denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must demonstrate “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.” Id.The district court correctly determined that the State of Oklahoma was not the
proper respondent. A habeas petition must be directed toward the petitioner’s custodian.
-2-
28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243. When Mr. Edwards filed his petition, he was in detained at the
Oklahoma County Detention Center and therefore in the custody of the county sheriff.
Okla. Stat. tit. 19 § 513 (“The sheriff shall have the charge and custody of the jail of his
county, and all the prisoners in the same”). It appears that Mr. Edwards is currently
incarcerated at the Jackie Brannon Correctional Center in McAlester, Oklahoma; thus, his
current custodian is the warden of that facility. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
435 (2004) (“[T]he default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility
where the prisoner is being held”).
We further agree that the district court properly dismissed the petition rather than
substitute the proper party respondent. Although Mr. Edwards is proceeding pro se, the
court was under no obligation to correct obvious deficiencies in his petition. See Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e do not believe it is the proper
function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”). This
is especially true where, as here, the pro se petitioner has been repeatedly advised of the
error but has failed to respond at all to the matter. Finally, we agree with the magistrate’s
and the district court’s assessment of Mr. Edwards’s filings. Even construing them
liberally, we fail to comprehend the nature of Mr. Edwards’s claim(s). Thus, the petition
was properly dismissed. See Knox v. Wyo. Dep’t. of Corr., 34 F.3d 964, 968 (10th Cir.
1994) (affirming dismissal of § 2254 petition for failure to state a claim).
III. CONCLUSION
The district court properly dismissed Mr. Edwards’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly,
-3-
we DENY his request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. Mr. Edwards’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-4-