* This order is not binding precedent, except underthe doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be c ited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate reco rd, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument.

1 We construe Sims’s appellate filings liberally. See Cummings v. Evans , 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998). 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 13, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
RAPHAEL SIMS,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-2190
v. (D. of N.M.) PATRICK SNEDEKER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee. (D.C. No. CIV-05-101-WPJ)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before TACHA , Chief Judge, HARTZ , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner-Appellant Raphael Sims, proceeding pro se , 1 appeals the District of New Mexico’s dismissal of his federal habeas corpus application for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Because Sims’s state court habeas corpus-2-

application has yet to be adjudicated, we AFFIRM th e district court’s application of the exhaustion requirement to bar his federal pe tition. I. Discussion A prerequisite to federal jurisdiction over petitio ns for habeas relief is exhaustion of state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) . In general, [b]efore a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court. In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an opport unity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). This court has further explained that state claims remain unexhausted if s tate proceedings remain pending at the time the petition is filed. Robertson v. Utah , 119 F. App’x 212 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished). Sims filed a habeas corpus petition in New Mexico s tate court on October 26, 2004 and (without waiting for a decision) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court on Decem ber 3, 2004. Less than two months later, Sims filed this federal habeas petiti on on January 31, 2005. Apparently due to a combination of miscommunication and his own impatience, Sims filed a second federal habeas petition on Marc h 25, 2005. The District of New Mexico dismissed both petitions without prejudi ce on April 6, 2005, holding that because Sims’s state habeas petition was still pending in the New Mexico-3-

state courts, the state claims were unexhausted. T he district court reaffirmed its dismissal on July 26, 2005 in response to Sims’s ti mely motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Given that Sims conceded his state habeas petition was still pending at the time the d istrict court reviewed the federal petition, the district court correctly dismissed hi s federal habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. On appeal, Sims appears to argue that his failure t o exhaust should be excused. (Pet. Br. at 4). Construing his argumentliberally, Sims asks us to hold that New Mexico’s failure to rule on his habeas corpus petition constitutes an “absence of available state corrective process” or creates circumstances that render such process “ineffective to protect his rig hts” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). This provision provides: An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behal f of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court s hall not be granted unless it appears that – . . . (B)(I) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineff ective to protect the rights of the applicant. Under our cases construing the predecessor to this provision, we must ordinarily defer to state processes: comity requires that the petitioner exhaust his sta te appeals unless he can show such “inordinate, excessive and inexcusabl e delay” in the state appeal process that exhaustion would render h is rights ineffective to review the alleged trial errors.-4-

Harris v. Champion 938 F.2d 1062, 1069 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Jones v. Crouse , 360 F.2d 157, 158 (10th Cir. 1966)). Sims made no showing to the district court that his state habeas petition was languishing as aresult of inordinate, excessive and inexcusable delay. In fact, it would have been virtually impossible for him to do so: at the time of the district court’s dismissa l of his petition, Sims’s state habeas petition had been before the New Mexico courts for only five and a half months. In the past, we have held that a delay of fifteen m onths in adjudicating a state petition may give rise to “grave concerns in the realm of due process.” Prescher v. Crouse , 431 F.2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1970) (holding on th e basis of evidence presented that “special circumstances” exc used a fifteen-month delay). And we have allowed an evidentiary hearing to deter mine whether a delay of eighteen months is inordinate or inexcusable under the statute. See Jones, 360 F.2d at 158. Sims, however, has not provided any s howing of substantial delay in this case attributable to state officials or any ef fect by the alleged delay on his claims for review. Accordingly, the district cour t properly dismissed petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. II. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district c ourt, and DENY-5-

Sims’s request for a certificate of appealability.

Entered for the Court Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge