Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01388/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cynthia Coffman
Appellee
Christina Jiron
Not Party
Michael Jiron
Appellant
Rio Grande County
Appellee
Larry Winegraner
Appellee
Brabra Zollors
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 1, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINA JIRON, by and through her

next friend Michael Jiron,

Petitioner,

MICHAEL JIRON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RIO GRANDE COUNTY; BRABRA

ZOLLORS; LARRY WINEGRANER,

Case Manager II, Colorado Department

of Corrections; CYNTHIA COFFMAN,

Attorney General of the State of

Colorado,*

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-1388

(D. Colorado)

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02197-LTB)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Jiron filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in federal

district court on behalf of his daughter, Christina Jiron. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242

(“Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing and signed and

*

 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2) John Suthers is replaced by Cynthia

Coffman as the Attorney General for the State of Colorado. 

Appellate Case: 14-1388 Document: 01019408460 Date Filed: 04/01/2015 Page: 1 
verified by the person for whose relief is intended or by someone acting in his

behalf.”). The district court issued an order directing both Michael and Christina

to cure deficiencies in the § 2254 petition. The district court ordered Christina to

file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis, file a habeas petition on a

proper form, and name a proper respondent. The district court ordered Michael to

establish he had standing to proceed in this habeas action on Christina’s behalf. 

See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990) (setting out prerequisites

an individual must establish to demonstrate “‘next friend’” standing).

When neither Christina nor Michael cured the defects identified in the

preliminary order, the district court dismissed the habeas petition without

prejudice. In response, Michael filed a notice of appeal, purportedly on behalf of

Christina. But see Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2) (“A pro se notice of appeal is

considered filed on behalf of the signer and the signer’s spouse and minor

children (if they are parties), unless the notice clearly indicates otherwise.”). 

This court issued to Christina an order to show cause why she should not be

dismissed as a party for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Christina did not

respond to this order. Michael did respond, however, and merely asserted, as

relevant to the show-cause order, that it was difficult for him to communicate

with Christina.

This appeal is dismissed as to Christina. She did not file a notice of appeal

and the notice of appeal filed and signed by her father is not effective as to her. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1388 Document: 01019408460 Date Filed: 04/01/2015 Page: 2 
Id.; Pajarito Plateau Homesteaders, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 983, 986

(10th Cir. 2003) (“A non-lawyer may not represent another individual on appeal

and cannot file a notice of appeal on another’s behalf.”). The timely filing of a

notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Ray Haluch Gravel Co v. Centr. Pension Fund,

134 S. Ct. 773, 779 (2014).

Michael’s appeal is also dismissed. He has not “made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also

id. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a final order in a

proceeding under § 2254). The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite

to Michael’s appeal from the dismissal of this § 2254 petition. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Michael has failed to demonstrate

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. at 336

(quotations omitted). That is, a review of the district court record in this case

clearly demonstrates Michael failed to make the necessary Whitmore showing on

his standing to bring a habeas petition on Christina’s behalf. 495 U.S. at 163-64.

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-1388 Document: 01019408460 Date Filed: 04/01/2015 Page: 3 
For the reasons set out above, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. All

pending motions are hereby DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-1388 Document: 01019408460 Date Filed: 04/01/2015 Page: 4