UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EARL J. CROWNHART, 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

BEVERLY FULTON; JAMES X. 

QUINN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents – Appellees. 

No. 13–1448 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02739-BNB) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* 

Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

Earl J. Crownhart, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action challenging his 

current placement at the Grand Junction Regional Center, a Colorado state hospital. The 

district court noted that Crownhart is enjoined by filing restrictions.1 Citing facial 

deficiencies in the petition and a failure to exhaust state court remedies, the court 

dismissed Crownhart’s action. It also denied his motion to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), concluding that any appeal taken would not be in good faith. On 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res 

judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. 

1 See Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 13-cv-00959-LTB (D. Colo. June 14, 2013) (prohibiting 

Crownhart from filing future civil actions in the District of Colorado without 

representation by an attorney, unless he obtains leave of Court to proceed pro se); see 

also Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 13-1272, 2013 WL 4446229 *1 (10th Cir. August 21, 

2013) (noting that Crownhart had filed eighteen habeas petitions and seventeen 

complaints since December 2005). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 17, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

appeal, Crownhart asks this Court to issue a certificate of appealability and to allow him 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction under § 1291, we decline those 

requests. 

Certificate of Appealability 

A certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional requirement that we issue “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this burden, a petitioner must show “reasonable jurists 

could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or 

that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (citations and quotations omitted). 

Crownhart fails to meet this burden. As the district court noted, Crownhart’s 

challenge to his current confinement has already been addressed and dismissed for failure 

to exhaust state court remedies. See Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB, 2013 

WL 2237490 at *4 (D. Colo. May 21, 2013). Nothing in his present petition demonstrates 

that he has now exhausted his state court remedies or that the district court’s resolution of 

his case was in error. Accordingly, we deny his request for a certificate of appealability. 

Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, any court of the United States may grant pauper status to 

“allow indigent persons to prosecute, defend or appeal suits without prepayment of 

costs.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 441 (1962). Here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3), the district court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith 

and denied Crownhart’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. In light of that 
- 3 - 

action, we will only grant pauper status if we conclude that the appeal contains a nonfrivolous argument. See Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 

(10th Cir. 2007). 

Crownhart has not raised any discernible argument challenging the conclusion of the 

district court that this challenge to his current dentition was already addressed in 

Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB, 2013 WL 2237490 (D. Colo. May 21, 

2013). For this reason, we conclude Crownhart’s appeal does not contain a non-frivolous 

argument, and we deny the motion for pauper status. Crownhart is therefore obligated to 

pay his filing fee in full. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge