Case Name: Earl J. CROWNHART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Beverly FULTON; James X. Quinn; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-17
Citations: 548 F. App'x 555
Docket Number: No. 13-1448
Parties: Earl J. CROWNHART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Beverly FULTON; James X. Quinn; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Earl J. CROWNHART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Beverly FULTON; James X. Quinn; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-1448.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2013.
Earl Crownhart, Grand Junction, CO, pro se.
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
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. 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 appeal, Crownhart asks this Court to issue a certificate of appeala-bility and to allow him to proceed informa 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (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 action, we will only grant pauper status if we conclude that the appeal contains a non-frivolous argument. See Holland 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.
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.
. 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, 531 Fed.Appx. 906, 906 (10th Cir.2013) (noting that Crownhart had filed eighteen habeas petitions and seventeen complaints since December 2005).