Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04157/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04157-0/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

November 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

AARON DAVID TRENT NEEDHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-4157

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00146-DB)

(D. Utah)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Aaron Needham’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Needham seeks a COA so he can appeal the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because Needham has not “made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this

court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

The district court dismissed Needham’s § 2254 habeas petition without

prejudice on the ground that Needham had not yet exhausted his state court

remedies. See generally Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 16-4157 Document: 01019721078 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 1 
§ 2254(b)(1). In so doing, the district court recognized that the exhaustion

requirement may be excused where state court processes are not effective. See

generally Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1546 (10th Cir.1994); 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii). Nevertheless, the district court concluded there was

absolutely nothing in the record to conclude that the ongoing Utah state court

direct appeal was remotely “ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” See

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii).

“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should

issue when 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). This court has closely reviewed Needham’s brief on appeal and

application for COA, the district court’s order of dismissal, and the entire record

on appeal. That review demonstrates the district court’s resolution of Needham’s

§ 2254 petition is not reasonably debatable. Accordingly, Needham has not made

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to

a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This court DENIES Needham’s request for a COA

and DISMISSES this appeal. Needham’s various motions that remain pending

fall within two categories. All pending motions which relate to, or depend on, the

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-4157 Document: 01019721078 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 2 
merits of Needham’s § 2254 habeas petition are hereby DENIED as moot. All

pending motions which relate to the regulation of ongoing Utah state court

proceedings are DENIED because “[f]ederal courts hold no supervisory authority

over state judicial proceedings and may intervene only to correct wrongs of

constitutional dimension.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982). In any

event, as noted above, there is absolutely nothing in the record casting even the

smallest doubt on the ability of the Utah state courts to protect Needham’s

constitutional rights.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

1 Circuit Judge

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-4157 Document: 01019721078 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 3