Case Name: Jerry L. MASKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AURORA ANIMAL CARE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-16
Citations: 365 F. App'x 933
Docket Number: No. 09-1539
Parties: Jerry L. MASKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AURORA ANIMAL CARE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 933–934

Head Matter:
Jerry L. MASKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AURORA ANIMAL CARE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-1539.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 16, 2010.
Jerry L. Maske, Aurora, CO, pro se.
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would 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 submitted without oral argument.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises out of multiple case filings in district court for a Writ of Habe-as Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Jerry Maske is a frequent filer in district court and is subject to filing restrictions. Because Maske failed to follow filing requirements, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Maske now requests a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to pursue an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal a denial of a habeas application). He makes the same arguments he made in Maske v. Murphy, 365 Fed.Appx. 938 (10th Cir.2010). For the same reasons set forth in that case, we DENY the application for a COA.
Because his application for a COA is frivolous, we DENY his request to proceed informa pauperis.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.