Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-04047/USCOURTS-ca10-10-04047-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL GENE LEE, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-4047

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00709-DAK)

(D. Utah)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Carl Gene Lee, Sr., a state inmate proceeding pro se,

seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Lee has not

made the necessary “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to

obtain a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

483-84 (2000). Therefore, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

In August 2009, Mr. Lee filed a one-page, handwritten habeas petition

along with almost thirty pages of Utah state court filings and correspondence with

the Utah State Bar and various attorneys. 1 R. 4-31. The district court found the

petition indecipherable, ordered the clerk to mail Mr. Lee forms and instructions

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

for filing a petition, and instructed Mr. Lee to complete the form petition “in an

organized, concise fashion.” Id. at 32. The court warned Mr. Lee that failure to

comply risked dismissal. Id. Mr. Lee submitted another handwritten letter and

attachments. Id. at 33-36. The court found this submission non-responsive and

dismissed the petition. Id. at 38. 

Mr. Lee appeals, but before exercising jurisdiction over his appeal we must

grant a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342

(2003). We will issue a COA to appeal a procedural ruling only if the petitioner

shows that “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In his

COA application and brief, Mr. Lee claims that he still does not understand how

to submit a habeas petition without an attorney. Pet. Br. at 2-3. The district court

gave Mr. Lee a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in his petition. But

Mr. Lee did not comply with the court’s instructions, and ignored his basic

obligation to provide sufficient facts on which to base a claim. Hall v. Bellmon,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 2 
- 3 -

Without any basis to question the district court’s procedural ruling, we

DENY a COA and any other pending motions, and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-4047 Document: 01018483012 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 3