F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 2 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIE JAMES WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 00-3353
v.
(District of Kansas)
(D.C. No. 00-CV-3397-DES)
KAREN ROHLING; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF KANSAS,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Proceeding pro se , petitioner Willie James Williams seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to enable him to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal
may be taken from the denial of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first
obtains a COA). Williams is not entitled to a COA unless he can make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2).
Williams can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues raised are
debatable among jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the
questions presented deserve further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel , 120 S.
Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000).
In his § 2254 petition, Williams challenged the decision by a state Joint
Committee on Special Claims denying his claims for damages in the amounts of
$999,000,000 and $100,000,000,000. Williams’ claims involved allegations that
state prison officials lost his legal papers. Although the district court
acknowledged that Williams had failed to exhaust his state remedies, the court
concluded that Williams’ petition failed to allege any violation of federal law that
is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(2).
This court has reviewed Williams’ request for a COA and accompanying
brief and has conducted a de novo review of the district court’s order and the
-2-
entire record on appeal. On appeal, Williams has failed to identified any error in
the district court’s analysis, and this court finds none. Accordingly, this court
denies Williams’ request for a COA for substantially those reasons set forth in
the district court’s order dated October 30, 2000, and dismisses this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-