FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 5, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
GREGORY JOE EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 05-6212
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
JOHN WHETSEL, Sheriff, Oklahoma (D.C. No. CIV-04-1765-L)
County,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE , LUCERO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Gregory Joe Edwards, filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 29, 2004. Edwards, a state
pretrial detainee, alleged that (1) his due process and equal protection rights were
violated when he was arrested for failure to appear at a state court hearing
scheduled on October 13, 2004 and (2) his rights to a speedy trial have been
violated. Edwards sought both release from pretrial detention and a dismissal of
the state charges against him. The district court dismissed Edwards’ pretrial
habeas application without prejudice, concluding that abstention was appropriate
based on the doctrine enunciated in Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The
court also concluded that Edwards had failed to exhaust his state remedies.
Edwards now seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to enable him to
appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2241 application. A COA may issue
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El
v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). This “requires an overview of the claims
in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Id. at 336.
Further, when the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the applicant’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should
issue only when the applicant shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000).
This court has reviewed Edwards’ application for a COA and appellate
brief, the district court’s order, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
-2-
and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme
Court in Miller-El and concludes that Edwards is not entitled to a COA. The
district court’s resolution of Edwards’ claims is not reasonably subject to debate
and the claims are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. 1
Accordingly,
Edwards has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This court denies Edwards’ request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
Edwards’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted . All other
outstanding motions are denied .
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
1
On October 18, 2005, Edwards filed a document in this court indicating
that he was convicted after a jury trial of one state charge brought against him.
Accordingly, to the extent Edwards is seeking release from state pretrial
detention, his claims are now moot.
-3-