Case Name: Richard MCCLOSKEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-05
Citations: 710 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 17-8056
Parties: Richard MCCLOSKEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
Richard MCCLOSKEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-8056
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed February 5, 2018
(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00045-SWS) (D. Wyoming)
Richard McCloskey, Pro Se
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Monroe G. McKay, Circuit Judge
Petitioner Richard McCloskey seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's dismissal of his § 2254 ha-beas corpus petition.
In his habeas petition, Petitioner sought review of various state criminal proceedings against him. These proceedings were either recently decided cases that Petitioner had not appealed in the Wyoming state courts, or ongoing criminal cases in which a final judgment had not yet been entered. The district court thus concluded that the federal habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice based on (1) Petitioner's failure to exhaust his state court remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see also Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2009) (dismissal of a habeas petition is proper if the failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the petition), and (2) the Younger abstention doctrine, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner's brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court's procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore DENY Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.