Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01347/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JEREMY PINSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID BERKEBILE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JEREMY PINSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

J. OLIVER, WARDEN, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 16-1347 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00423-RM) 

No. 16-1363 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00410-RM) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

These matters are before the court on receipt of appellant Jeremy Pinson’s 

response to our orders dated November 7, 2016 and November 21, 2016. The response is 

in the form of a Petition for Leave to Proceed. In the prior orders, Mr. Pinson was 

advised that in order to seek permission to proceed pro se in these appeals, he had to 

comply with the filing restrictions imposed by this court in 2015. See Pinson v. Oliver, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1347 Document: 01019742192 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 1 
2 

601 Fed. App’x 679 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2015). A copy of the court’s decision imposing 

the restrictions was mailed to Mr. Pinson with the November 7 order. 

In the 2015 Order & Judgment this court stated that “[i]n order to proceed pro se 

in this court in the future in any §2241 appeal” Mr. Pinson must file a petition requesting 

leave. Id. at 684 (emphasis added). Any petition filed, such as the petition here, must 

include the following information: 

a. A list, by case name, number, and citation where applicable, of all pro se 

proceedings raising § 2241 claims currently pending or filed previously in 

this court by Mr. Pinson, with a statement indicating the current status or 

disposition of each proceeding; 

b. A list apprising this court of all outstanding injunctions, contempt orders, 

or other judicial directions limiting his access to federal court, including 

orders and injunctions requiring him to be represented by an attorney; with 

each matter to include the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of all 

such orders and injunctions; 

Id. at 684. In addition, any petition filed must also include: 

 . . . a notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, reciting the issues [Mr. 

Pinson] seeks to present, including a short discussion of the legal basis 

asserted for the challenge, and, if appropriate, describing with particularity 

the order or ruling being challenged or the issue being raised. The affidavit 

must also certify, to the best of Mr. Pinson's knowledge, that the legal 

arguments raised are not frivolous or made in bad faith; that they are 

warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, 

modification, or reversal of existing law; that his appeal or original 

proceeding is not being filed for an improper purpose; that his arguments 

do not duplicate arguments previously raised and rejected in a prior case; 

and that he will comply with all federal appellate rules and local rules of 

this court. 

Id. at 684-685 (alteration added). Finally, the court’s decision directs the clerk of court to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute any proceeding in which Mr. Pinson does not file a “fully 

compliant petition.” Id. at 685. 

Appellate Case: 16-1347 Document: 01019742192 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 2 
3 

 The petition Mr. Pinson has submitted clearly does not meet these requirements. 

Among other issues, even a cursory review of this court’s records reveals many 

additional prior appeals and proceedings. Moreover, the case listings contained in Mr. 

Pinson’s petition do not include case names, citations where applicable, or any statements 

concerning the status and/or disposition of those matters. Likewise, Mr. Pinson’s listing 

of his filing restrictions is incomplete and does not include the information required by 

the 2015 restrictions noted above. Finally, while Mr. Pinson has submitted a notarized 

affidavit, it does not include all of the required information. In particular, we note the 

filing of a brief does not obviate the need to comply. This list is not exhaustive, but 

provides a general listing of the noted deficiencies. 

 Consequently, and consistent with the 2015 restrictions, these matters are 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1. In light of this dismissal, the 

United States’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. 

 A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate in both cases. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-1347 Document: 01019742192 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 3