Fletcher v. Lengerich

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 13, 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
JOHN PATRICK FLETCHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 17-1288
JASON LENGERICH, BVCF Warden; (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-01022-LTB)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF (D. Colo.)
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
______________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner John Patrick Fletcher, a Colorado state prisoner appearing pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). In a written order, the district court denied the motion as time-
barred under § 2244(d)(1). Because Petitioner has not shown “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
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however,
for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
district court was correct in its procedural ruling,” we summarily deny Petitioner a
COA and dismiss his appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
We need not detail Petitioner’s arguments challenging application of
§2244(d)(1)’s one-year limitation period to his petition. Suffice to say we have
carefully reviewed his “Combined Opening Brief and Application for a Certificate
of Appealability,” the record on appeal, and the district court’s written order denying
his petition as time-barred. Based on our review, we conclude the district court
accurately analyzed the statute of limitations issue and properly dismissed the
petition. Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue and articulates a
cogent rationale, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Thus, we reject
Petitioner’s argument that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is timely
substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s written order which ably
explains why Petitioner is not entitled to a COA.
COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. Motion for IFP DENIED as moot
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
2