Case ID: f-appx_140/html/0807-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EBEL, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth D. HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WHETSEL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-6104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 18, 2005.
    Richard N. Mann, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Kenneth D. Hill, who has been detained pending his trial in Oklahoma state court on criminal charges, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief. Hill’s § 2241 petition asserts various complaints, including allegations that there were delays following his arrest in holding a probable cause hearing, instituting formal charges, and conducting an arraignment. The district court dismissed Hill’s petition because he failed to exhaust the available state court remedies.

A state detainee bringing a § 2241 claim must be granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) prior to being heard on the merits of his or her appeal. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867-69 (10th Cir. 2000). Because the district court denied Hill a COA, we deem Hill’s notice of appeal to be a renewed application for a COA. See Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(2). However, we DENY Hill a COA for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its orders dismissing Hill’s § 2241 petition and denying Hill a COA. Therefore, we DISMISS Hill’s appeal. 
      
      . We GRANT Hill’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
     
      
      . In light of our disposition of Hill's appeal, we DENY as MOOT the other motions that Hill has filed.