Daniel v. Uphoff , 55 F. App'x 513 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 27 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN A. DANIEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 02-8075
D.C. No. 02-CV-6-B
JUDY UPHOFF, Director, Wyoming
(D. Wyoming)
Department of Corrections, in her
official capacity; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
WYOMING,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
This case is before the court on John Daniel’s pro se requests for a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) and for permission to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. Daniel seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court’s
dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from “the final
order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises
out of process issued by a state court” unless the petitioner first obtains a COA).
We grant Daniel’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Daniel has not
made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” however, this
court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. Id. § 2253(c)(2).
The district court dismissed Daniel’s § 2254 habeas petition without
prejudice because Daniel had not yet exhausted his state court remedies. See
generally Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1992); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In so
doing, the district court recognized that the exhaustion requirement may be
excused where a state court appeals process is not effective. See Harris v.
Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1546 (10th Cir. 1994). Although Daniel’s direct appeal
had been pending for several years, the district court concluded that much of the
delay was occasioned by Daniel’s own counsel. Furthermore, the district court
noted that the appellate record was now complete, a briefing schedule had been
set, and the Wyoming Supreme Court had clearly not abandoned the appeal. In
-2-
these circumstances, the district court concluded that all parties would benefit
from requiring the compete exhaustion of Daniel’s claims.
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should
issue when 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). This court has closely reviewed Daniel’s brief on appeal and application
for COA, the respondent’s brief in opposition to the grant of a COA, the district
court’s order of dismissal, and the entire record on appeal. Our review
demonstrates the district court’s resolution of Daniel’s § 2254 petition is not
reasonably debatable. Accordingly, Daniel has not made “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c). This court GRANTS Daniel’s request to proceed in forma pauperis,
DENIES his request for a COA for substantially those reasons set out in the
-3-
district court’s order of dismissal dated July 23, 2002 and DISMISSES this
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-