Jiron v. Colorado Supreme Court ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 4, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
EDW ARD A. JIRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1453
v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-2672)
CO LOR AD O SUPREM E COUR T; (D . Colo.)
CO LOR AD O C OU RT OF APPEALS
(Judge W ebb),
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M cK AY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
resolution of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
M r. Jiron filed a pro se civil rights complaint and sought habeas relief from
the district court. The district court construed his filing as claiming disagreement
with decisions by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal, and
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
the Colorado Supreme Court, which denied certiorari and declined to review his
petition.
The district court determined that M r. Jiron’s challenge of state court
decisions was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and therefore dismissed his
complaint and action for lack of jurisdiction. Order, 3 (D . Colo. M ar. 16, 2005).
M r. Jiron then filed a motion to reconsider the judgment of dismissal, which the
district court also denied. Order D enying M otion to Reconsider, 3 (D. Colo. Sept.
2, 2005). Finally, the district court, applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denied M r. Jiron
leave to appeal. Order (D. Colo. Oct. 27, 2005). W hile we have not determined
whether the standard of review of an order denying leave to appeal under § 1915
is de novo or abuse of discretion, we would reach the same decision under either
standard in this case. See Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1130 (10th Cir. 2000).
W e have carefully reviewed M r. Jiron’s brief, the district court’s orders,
and the record on appeal, and for substantially similar reasons to the those laid
out by the district court in its M arch 16, 2005, and September 2, 2005, orders, w e
AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of M r. Jiron’s claim and the district
court’s denial of leave to appeal. We grant M r. Jiron’s m otion to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-2-