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 official 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 CERTIFICATE 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 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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: 1
2 

_________________________________ 

Franklin Smith, a Wyoming pretrial detainee 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 various 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 with 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 County Detention Center pending trial on the 

criminal charges. Additionally, Mr. Smith alleged that the state district judge overseeing 

his criminal proceedings wrongfully denied his pro se motion to dismiss the criminal 

charges and abused her power 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 therefore ordered Mr. Smith to show cause within 

Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 2
3 

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 the show cause order and instead filed a 

motion for recusal and a motion for a temporary restraining order against several 

employees of the Sheridan County Detention Center. The district court denied those 

motions and granted Mr. Smith three weeks to file an amended habeas petition. 

 Mr. Smith responded by filing an amended 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 state criminal proceeding was ineffective and was 

attempting to prolong Mr. Smith’s pretrial incarceration in order to force him to plead 

guilty to the charges. The amended 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 court 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 court noted there was an ongoing state criminal 

proceeding against Mr. Smith in the Wyoming state courts, the Wyoming state courts 

provided an adequate forum to hear the claims asserted by Mr. Smith in his amended 

petition, and the ongoing state criminal proceedings involved important state interests 

because they involved alleged violations of Wyoming state criminal law. The district 

Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 3
4 

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, resulting in Appeal No. 24-8005, and now 

seeks a COA from this court. 

B. Appeal No. 24-8020 

Shortly before he filed his amended petition in District Court Case No. 23-CV223-ABJ, Mr. Smith filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. That petition 

also challenged the legality of Mr. Smith’s detention and pending state criminal 

proceedings in the State of Wyoming. More specifically, the petition alleged that: the 

local law enforcement officers who arrested him in Sheridan, Wyoming, for trespassing 

entrapped and unlawfully detained 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 ineffective. 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 transferred the case to the District of 

Wyoming, where it was assigned District Court Case No. 24-CV-00050-ABJ. Shortly 

after the transfer, the district court in the District of Wyoming issued an order dismissing 

Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 4
5 

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 declined to issue a COA. 

Mr. Smith filed a notice of appeal, resulting in Appeal No. 24-8020, and now 

seeks a COA from this court. 

II 

 It is well established that “a state prisoner 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 complained 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 district court denies a petition 

on procedural grounds without 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 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). We need not 

address the constitutional question if we conclude that reasonable jurists would not 

debate the district court’s procedural ruling. See id. at 485. 

 “In Younger, the Supreme Court held that federal 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 Supreme Court has since “set out a 

Appellate Case: 24-8005 Document: 010111101549 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 5
6 

three-part test for determining whether a federal 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 federal court should abstain in favor of a state 

proceeding if it determines that: “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state 

proceedings implicate important 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 reviewing 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 subject of pending state criminal proceedings 

in the State of Wyoming. Further, the Supreme Court itself “has recognized that the 

States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems 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 pending 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: 6
7 

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