Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01371/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christina Jiron
Not Party
Michael Jiron
Appellant
Linda Koffman
Appellee
Brian Norton
Appellee
Lara Reinkce
Appellee
John Suthers
Appellee
Patty Swift
Appellee
Lori Tafoya
Appellee
Barbara Zollers
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MICHAEL JIRON; CHRISTINA C. 

JIRON, through her next friend, Michael 

Jiron, 

 Petitioners - Appellants, 

v. 

RIO GRANDE JUDGE PATTY SWIFT; 

BARBARA ZOLLERS, Attorney for the 

Defendant; DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

LARA REINKCE; RIO GRANDE 

COUNTY SHERIFF BRIAN NORTON; 

WARDEN LORI TAFOYA; LINDA 

KOFFMAN (current); JOHN SUTHERS 

(2014), 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 16-1371 and 16-1395 

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-01905-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This is the second occasion on which we have been asked to review the denial of 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Christina Jiron with respect to her Colorado conviction 

and sentence. On the prior occasion we considered a challenge to the district court’s 

dismissal without prejudice of a § 2254 application filed on her behalf by her father, 

Michael Jiron. See Jiron ex rel. Jiron v. Rio Grande Cty., 599 F. App’x 339 (10th Cir. 

2015). We dismissed the appeal as to Ms. Jiron because she did not file a notice of 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 13, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1371 Document: 01019734356 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Page: 1 
 2 

appeal (the one signed by her father on her behalf was not effective as to her) and denied 

Mr. Jiron’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA), see 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring COA to appeal denial of § 2254 relief), because he failed to 

satisfy the prerequisites for “next friend” standing. See Jiron, 599 F. App’x at 340. 

Mr. Jiron has once again filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging 

his daughter’s conviction and sentence. And once again the district court dismissed the 

§ 2254 application without prejudice because Ms. Jiron failed to cure its deficiencies and 

Mr. Jiron failed to establish “next friend” standing. The only difference in this court this 

time around is that both Ms. Jiron and Mr. Jiron have requested a COA to appeal the 

dismissal. We deny both requests and dismiss both appeals. 

A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a 

demonstration that . . . includes showing that 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.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the 

application was denied on procedural grounds, the applicant faces a double hurdle. Not 

only must the applicant make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, 

but he must also show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present 

and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

Appellate Case: 16-1371 Document: 01019734356 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Page: 2 
 3 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

We deny Mr. Jiron’s request for a COA because reasonable jurists would not find 

it debatable whether the district court was correct in concluding that he failed to establish 

“next friend” standing. To establish such standing, Mr. Jiron had the burden to (1) 

“provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other 

disability—why [Ms. Jiron could not] appear on [her] own behalf to prosecute the 

action,” and (2) show that he was “truly dedicated to [her] best interests.” Whitmore v. 

Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163, 164 (1990). In both his submissions to the district court 

and to this court, Mr. Jiron offers nothing more than conclusory assertions that Ms. Jiron 

is unable to protect her interests, that he is truly dedicated to her best interests, and that he 

has been the only one representing her since January of 2014. Giving his submissions a 

liberal construction, see Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 

(10th Cir. 2005), it appears that his most specific assertion is that he has standing because 

Ms. Jiron did not receive certain documents from the district court and she could not 

respond to the court because she is incarcerated. But Ms. Jiron was able to file her own 

request for a COA and Mr. Jiron does not explain how her incarceration interfered with 

her ability to communicate with the district court. 

We also deny Ms. Jiron’s request. She did not respond when the district court 

pointed to deficiencies in her application that needed to be cured. And in this court her 

brief does not address the grounds for the district court’s dismissal and describes her 

claim as proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Even though we are lenient with pro se 

Appellate Case: 16-1371 Document: 01019734356 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Page: 3 
 4 

litigants, we will not construct arguments for her. See id. (“[T]he court cannot take on 

the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments.”).

We DENY both requests for a COA and DISMISS the appeals. Ms. Jiron’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. All other pending motions are 

DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-1371 Document: 01019734356 Date Filed: 12/13/2016 Page: 4