UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. SHERIFF OF SHERIDAN COUNTY JAIL, in his official capacity, also known as Levi Dominguez; SHERIDAN CHIEF OF POLICE, in his of ficial capacity, also known as Travis Koltiska; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.

––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. SHERIDAN COUNTY SHERIFF, a/k/a Levi Dominguez, Respondent - Appellee. No. 24-8005 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00223-ABJ) (D. Wyo.)

No. 24-8020 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-00050-ABJ) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , KELLY , and EID , Circuit Judges.

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### August 28, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 12 ________________ _________________ Franklin Smith, a Wyoming pretrial detain ee appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in each of these cases in order to challenge the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions he filed challenging va rious aspects of his pending criminal proceedings in the State of Wyoming. We deny a COA in each case and dismiss these matters. We also deny Mr. Smith’s pending motions.
I
A. Appeal No. 24-8005 Mr. Smith initiated District Court Case No. 23-CV-223-ABJ by filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Smith alleged in his petition that he was wrongfully arrested at the Quality Inn in Sheridan, Wyoming, on November 10, 2023, and improperly charged w ith trespassing, destruction of property, and breach of the peace. Mr. Smith further alleged that he was being unlawfully detained and wrongfully imprisoned at the Sheridan Co unty Detention Center pending trial on the criminal charges. Additionally, Mr. Smith alle ged that the state district judge overseeing his criminal proceedings wrongfully denied his pro se motion to dismiss the criminal charges and abused her powe r by setting a high bond. Mr. Smith sought relief in the form of immediate release from confinement. Shortly after Mr. Smith filed his petition, the district court issued a show cause order noting a number of potential deficiencies in the petition. In particular, the district court noted it was clear from the petition that Mr. Smith had failed to exhaust his state court remedies. The district court therefor e ordered Mr. Smith to show cause within Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 23 thirty days why his petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state court remedies. Mr. Smith did not file a response to th e show cause order and instead filed a motion for recusal and a motion for a tem porary restraining order against several employees of the Sheridan C ounty Detention Center. The district court denied those motions and granted Mr. Smith three week s to file an amen ded habeas petition. Mr. Smith responded by filing an ame nded petition seeking relief under § 2241. Mr. Smith alleged in his amended petition that he was entrapped and improperly arrested because he was not given any trespassing warnings prior to his arrest. Mr. Smith also alleged that his defense counsel in the stat e criminal proceeding was ineffective and was attempting to prolong Mr. Smith’s pretrial in carceration in order to force him to plead guilty to the charges. The am ended petition also appeared to allege that the state trial court failed to provide Mr. Smith with a prompt probable cause hearing and was depriving him of his right to a speedy trial. Like the original petition, the amended petition sought relief in the form of Mr. Smith’s immediate release from custody. On January 24, 2024, the district cour t issued an order dismissing Mr. Smith’s amended petition under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In doing so, the district c ourt noted there was an ongoing state criminal proceeding against Mr. Smith in the Wyomi ng state courts, the Wyoming state courts provided an adequate forum to hear the claims assert ed by Mr. Smith in his amended petition, and the ongoing state cr iminal proceedings involved important state interests because they involved alleged vi olations of Wyoming state cr iminal law. The district Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 34 court in turn concluded there were no applicable exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine that would allow it to interfere in the state court proceedings by addressing the merits of the amended petition. Mr. Smith filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court denied that motion and declined to issue a COA. Mr. Smith filed a notice of appeal, resu lting in Appeal No. 24-8005, and now seeks a COA from this court.
B. Appeal No. 24-8020 Shortly before he filed his amended pe tition in District Co urt Case No. 23-CV223-ABJ, Mr. Smith filed a pro se petition for wr it of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in the United States District Court for the West ern District of Washington. That petition also challenged the legality of Mr. Smith’s detention and pending state criminal proceedings in the State of Wyoming. Mo re specifically, the petition alleged that: the local law enforcement officers who arrested him in Sherid an, Wyoming, for trespassing entrapped and unlawfully deta ined him without due process; those same officers also conducted an unlawful search; the state district court judge imposed an excessively high bond; and his appointed counsel was ineffec tive. The petition further alleged that the Americans with Disabilities Act entitled Mr. Smith to greater protections in the ongoing state criminal proceedings. The Western District of Washington tran sferred the case to the District of Wyoming, where it was assigned District C ourt Case No. 24-CV-00050-ABJ. Shortly after the transfer, the district court in the Di strict of Wyoming issued an order dismissing Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 45 the petition under the Younger abstention doctrine. In doing so, the district court adopted the same analysis it utilized in dismissing Mr . Smith’s amended petition in the first case. The district court also d eclined to issue a COA. Mr. Smith filed a notice of appeal, resu lting in Appeal No. 24-8020, and now seeks a COA from this court.
II It is well established that “a state prisone r must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a habeas petition, whether such petition was filed pursuant to § 2254 or § 2241, whenever ‘the detention compla ined of in the petition arises out of process issued by a
State court.’” Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (brackets omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( A)). Where, as here, the di strict court denies a petition on procedural grounds withou t reaching the merits of the constitutional claims, the petitioner must, in order to obtain a COA, show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition st ates a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason woul d find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 ( 2000). We need not address the constitutional question if we c onclude that reasonabl e jurists would not debate the district cour t’s procedural ruling. See id. at 485.
“In Younger , the Supreme Court held that fede ral courts, except in the most exceptional circumstances, must dismiss suits for declaratory or injunctive relief against pending state criminal proceedings.” Phelps v. Hamilton , 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger , 401 U.S. at 43, 53–54). The S upreme Court has since “set out a Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 56 three-part test for determining whether a fede ral court should abstain in favor of a state proceeding.” Id. (citing Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n , 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Under that test, a federa l court should abstain in favor of a state proceeding if it determines that: “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate im portant state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges.” Id. The district court determined these three requirements were satisfied in both of the cases that Mr. Smith filed. After reviewin g the records on appeal, we conclude that jurists of reason would not find the district court’s determinations debatable. To begin with, it is undisputed that Mr. Smith is the s ubject of pending state criminal proceedings in the State of Wyoming. Further, the Su preme Court itself “has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their cr iminal justice system s free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson , 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). And, lastly, we have no doubt that the pe nding state criminal proceedings provide Mr. Smith “a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of [his] federal constitutional rights.” Kugler v. Helfant , 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975). Thus, Mr. Smith has failed to satisfy one of the two necessary showings for issuance of a COA.
III For these reasons, we deny Mr. Smith a COA in each case and dismiss these Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 67 matters. We also deny all of Mr. Smith’s pending motions, including his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 7