Case Name: Edward A. JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO SUPREME COURT; Colorado Court of Appeals (Judge Webb), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-04
Citations: 190 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 05-1453
Parties: Edward A. JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO SUPREME COURT; Colorado Court of Appeals (Judge Webb), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
Edward A. JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO SUPREME COURT; Colorado Court of Appeals (Judge Webb), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1453.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2006.
Edward A. Jirón, Denver, CO, pro se.
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, State of Colorado, Department of Law, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Jirón filed a pro se civil rights complaint and sought habeas relief from the district court. The district court construed his filing as claiming disagreement with decisions by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court, which denied certiorari and declined to review his petition.
The district court determined that Mr. Jiron's challenge of state court decisions was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and therefore dismissed his complaint and action for lack of jurisdiction. Order, 3 (D.Colo. Mar. 16, 2005). Mr. Jirón then filed a motion to reconsider the judgment of dismissal, which the district court also denied. Order Denying Motion to Reconsider, 3 (D.Colo. Sept. 2, 2005). Finally, the district court, applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denied Mr. Jirón leave to appeal. Order (D.Colo. Oct. 27, 2005). While we have not determined whether the standard of review of an order denying leave to appeal under § 1915 is de novo or abuse of discretion, we would reach the same decision under either standard in this case. See Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128,1130 (10th Cir.2000).
We have carefully reviewed Mr. Jiron's brief, the district court's orders, and the record on appeal, and for substantially similar reasons to the those laid out by the district court in its March 16, 2005, and September 2, 2005, orders, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Mr. Jiron's claim and the district court's denial of leave to appeal. We grant Mr. Jiron's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.