UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JOSEPH LEE JONES, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DOUGLAS COUNTY JAIL, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 21-3064 

(D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03056-SAC) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Petitioner Joseph Lee Jones, a Kansas pretrial detainee appearing pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (COA) so that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons 

outlined below, we deny Jones’ application for COA and dismiss this matter. 

I 

 On February 18, 2020, Jones initiated these proceedings by filing what he 

described as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241. Jones alleged in his 

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 21, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

petition that he was a pretrial detainee confined in the Douglas County Jail in Lawrence, 

Kansas, who had been found incompetent to stand trial and had been ordered to be 

committed to the Larned State Hospital for evaluation and treatment.1

 The gist of Jones’ 

petition, as best we can determine, was three-fold.2

 First, Jones alleged that Kansas state 

officials were not complying with Kansas’ statutory requirements for the evaluation and 

treatment of incompetent criminal defendants. Second, Jones complained that he wished 

to represent himself in the ongoing state criminal proceedings, but was being forced by 

the state trial court to be represented by an attorney named Dakota Loomis. According to 

the petition, Loomis had stolen certain documents from Jones, thereby creating a conflict 

of interest between the two men. Third, Jones alleged that a hostile environment existed 

at the Douglas County Jail and he alleged in support that on January 14, 2020, an officer 

at the jail “inadvertantly [sic] asked [another] inmate to assault” Jones. ROA, Vol. 1 

at 12. On the basis of these allegations, Jones sought release from the Douglas County 

Jail. 

 On May 29, 2020, the district court issued a notice and order to show cause 

directing Jones to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice 

due to Jones’ failure to exhaust available state court remedies. 

1

 According to the record on appeal, all proceedings in Jones’ criminal case were 

stayed on or about January 24, 2020, so that Jones could be evaluated and potentially 

treated at the Larned State Hospital. Apparently due to COVID-19, however, Jones was 

not transferred to Larned State Hospital until late 2020 or early 2021. 

2

 Jones’ petition and other pleadings referred to other incidents, but none of those 

appear to have been the basis upon which he was seeking release from confinement. 
3 

 On June 4, 2020, Jones filed a response to the notice and order to show cause. Id. 

at 186. Jones alleged that he could not “utilize local or STATE and Kansas Supreme 

Courts for his [Kan. Stat. Ann. §] 60-1501 writs” because “due to COVID-19 they [we]re 

closed.” Id. Jones in turn alleged that he “ha[d] no other remedy at law available to 

him.” Id. 

 On October 5, 2020, Jones filed a pleading alleging that he “ha[d] met the 

requirement” that he “absolutely exhaust any concievable [sic] state remedy.” Id., Vol. 2 

at 77. Jones attached as an exhibit to this pleading a copy of an order issued by the 

Supreme Court of Kansas on September 24, 2020. Id. at 79. That order stated that the 

Supreme Court of Kansas “ha[d] considered and dismisse[d] [a] petition for writ of 

habeas corpus filed [by Jones] on July 10, 2020, as supplemented by [his] subsequent 

filings . . . on August 28, 2020, and August 31, 2020.” Id. The order did not describe the 

nature of the claims asserted by Jones. 

 On March 15, 2021, the district court issued a memorandum and order denying 

Jones’ petition, as well as various motions that he had filed during the pendency of the 

district court proceedings. In dismissing the petition, the district court noted that Jones 

had failed to establish “that the issues raised” in the habeas petition he filed with the 

Supreme Court of Kansas “were the same as the issues” he sought to pursue in his federal 

habeas petition. Id. at 107. The district court also concluded that, in any event, Jones had 

failed to “raise[] a valid claim for violation of his federal constitutional right to a speedy 

trial.” Id. at 108. The district court explained that the delay described by Jones 

“appear[ed] to fall short of a presumptively prejudicial delay,” and that “even if [Jones] 
4 

had shown presumptively prejudicial delay,” any speedy trial claim he might be asserting 

“would be foreclosed by the issue of his competency to stand trial” because it was “‘well 

established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the 

criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial.’” Id. at 109 

(quoting Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992)). Lastly, the district court 

concluded that “[a]ny claims” that Jones was asserting “challenging the conditions of his 

confinement d[id] not arise under Section 2241” and thus “[we]re not properly before the 

Court.” Id. at 110. The district court entered final judgment in the case that same day. 

Id. at 112. 

 Jones filed a motion to alter or amend judgment on March 22, 2021. On April 8, 

2021, Jones filed a notice of appeal. 

 On April 9, 2021, a two-judge panel of this court issued an order directing a 

limited remand to the district court to rule on Jones’ motion to alter or amend judgment 

and to consider whether to issue a COA. On April 14, 2021, the district court denied 

Jones’ motion to alter or amend judgment and declined to issue a COA. 

 Jones has now filed an application for COA with this court. 

II 

 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a COA is 

required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention 

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). We 

have long held, consistent with the plain language of § 2253(c)(1), “that a state prisoner 

must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a habeas petition, whether such petition was 
5 

filed pursuant to § 2254 or § 2241,” so long as the detention complained of arises out of 

process issued by a state court. Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). 

 A COA may issue only if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, the 

petitioner must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, 

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

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotation marks omitted). Further, where, as here, 

the district court denies the petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must “show[ ], 

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). 

 After examining Jones’ application for COA, we conclude that he has failed to 

make the requisite showing. As we have noted, the district court’s order of dismissal 

rested, in part, on its procedural ruling that Jones had failed to exhaust his state court 

remedies. Although Jones disputes that conclusion in his application for COA, he has 

failed to provide any documentation to establish that the claims he presented to the 

Supreme Court of Kansas were the same issues raised in his federal habeas petition. 

Thus, he has failed to establish that jurors of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 
6 

 Moreover, we note that the record indicates that Jones’ state criminal proceedings 

are ongoing. Jones alleges in his application for COA that in April of this year, he was 

determined by officials at the Larned State Hospital to be competent to stand trial and has 

now been returned to the Douglas County Jail for the continuation of his criminal 

proceedings. Those ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate two well-established 

principles that preclude Jones from pursuing this federal habeas action. First, “[i]t is well 

settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular 

judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in 

advance of a trial.” Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-92 (1918). Second, the Supreme 

Court has held that a federal court should not intervene in pending state criminal 

proceedings absent “irreparable injury” that “is both great and immediate.” Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1972) (quotation marks omitted). Nothing in the record 

indicates that Jones has incurred or is about to incur irreparable injury of any kind. 

Further, nothing in the record causes us to question whether the Kansas state courts can 

provide Jones with an adequate forum to litigate any constitutional claims he may have 

by way of pretrial proceedings, trial, and, if he is convicted, direct appeal and 

post-conviction proceedings. Therefore, the proper course is for Jones to first litigate his 

constitutional claims in the Kansas state courts. 
7 

III 

 Jones’ application for COA and his pending motions for leave to file a 

supplemental brief are DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge