Maunz v. Denver District Court

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 23, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
WILLIAM MAUNZ,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 05-1257
v. D. Colorado
DENVER DISTRICT COURT; (D.C. No. 05-Z-119)
COLORADO ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, SEYMOUR, Senior Circuit Judge, and
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
William Maunz, an inmate in the Denver County Jail, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) so that he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(requiring COA to appeal denial of § 2254 relief). We deny a COA and dismiss
his appeal.
Mr. Maunz initiated this action pro se in January 2005 by signing and
mailing to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado a
document titled “Motion to Dismiss Criminal Charge Writ of Habeas Corpus
Title 28 § 2254.” The pleading alleges that Mr. Maunz was denied the right to a
speedy trial, the right to a preliminary hearing, the ability to cross-examine
witnesses, and the right to subpoena documents, and that he had received
ineffective assistance of counsel during what were apparently two separate court
proceedings in which he was convicted of second-degree burglary and
misdemeanor theft. The magistrate judge entered an order on January 25 that (1)
directed the court clerk to commence a civil action and mail Mr. Maunz the
proper forms for seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for filing an
application under § 2254, and (2) directed Mr. Maunz to file a proper § 2254
application and either pay the filing fee or file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order provided that the action would
be dismissed if Mr. Maunz did not cure these deficiencies within 30 days.
On March 4 Mr. Maunz filed a motion (on the official form) for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for an extension of time. The magistrate
judge granted the extension on March 8, giving Mr. Maunz 30 days from that date
“to cure the deficiencies in this action.” R. Doc. 8.
Mr. Maunz did not, however, submit an application for a writ of habeas
corpus on the proper form within the allotted time. The district court therefore
dismissed the action without prejudice on April 18 and denied as moot the motion
seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
-2-
On May 31 Mr. Maunz filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 2 the
district court found the notice of appeal to be deficient because Mr. Maunz had
not submitted a filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed on appeal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24. The court therefore ordered the clerk to
mail the proper forms to Mr. Maunz. That same day the district court denied a
COA after having reviewed the record and deciding that Mr. Maunz had failed to
make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
On June 8 Mr. Maunz filed a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on
Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 in a Habeas Action.
Two days later the district court issued an order denying leave, explaining that the
appeal was not taken in good faith because Mr. Maunz had not “shown the
existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of
the issues raised on appeal.” R. Doc. 15 at 1.
Mr. Maunz now seeks a COA from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
The Supreme Court has held:
[W]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional
claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the district court’s order
may be taken) if 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.
-3-
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is
present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a
reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in
dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.
In such a circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.” Id. at 484. Mr. Maunz
has not met this burden.
Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that an
application for relief under § 2254 “must substantially follow either the form
appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” The
Colorado local rule states: “A pro se prisoner shall use the forms established by
this court to file an action. Upon request, the clerk shall provide copies of the
necessary forms and instructions for filing an action.” D. Colo. Civ. R. 8.2(A).
Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be liberally construed, he still must
follow the rules of federal procedure. See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d
1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002). On appeal a dismissal for failure to follow local
rules is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Murray v.
Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 610 (10th Cir. 1998).
After being directed to do so by the magistrate judge, Mr. Maunz failed to
file an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the proper form designated and
provided by the district court. Although his case was dismissed without prejudice
-4-
and he was therefore free to refile in district court, Mr. Maunz did not file a
proper application but instead sought relief in this court. We hold that no jurist of
reason would determine that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
Mr. Maunz’s action for failure to follow the local rule. See Bradenburg v.
Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980) (dismissing prisoner’s pro se filing
for failure to use form prescribed by local rules).
We therefore DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY
Mr. Maunz’s various motions.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-