Case Name: Daniel Joseph PARRISH-PARRADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRISONER REVIEW BOARD; Kansas Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 446 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 11-3336
Parties: Daniel Joseph PARRISH-PARRADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRISONER REVIEW BOARD; Kansas Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
Daniel Joseph PARRISH-PARRADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRISONER REVIEW BOARD; Kansas Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-3336.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2011.
Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado, Larned, KS, pro se.
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Frequent litigant Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in which he challenged the decision to deny him release on parole and complained of the conditions of his confinement. The district court dismissed without prejudice his challenge to the denial of parole on the ground that he had not exhausted his state administrative remedies. And it dismissed without prejudice his challenge to the conditions of confinement because such a challenge is not appropriate under § 2241.
Mr. Parrish-Parrado seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's decision. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.2000) (requiring COA to challenge denial of § 2241 claim by state prisoner). For the reasons stated in the district court's decision, he is clearly not entitled to a COA. We therefore DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Mr. Parrish-Parrado's motion to reconsider is denied as moot.