F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 8, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
K EN N ETH L. Y O RK ,
Petitioner-A ppellant,
No. 05-1395
v.
(D.C. No. 05-CV-1250-ZLW )
(D . Colo.)
JU A N ITA A . M cC ULLEY ,
Respondent-Appellee.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M C KA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth L. York, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
dismissal without prejudice of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because York is a federal prisoner and this proceeding
arises under § 2241, he does not need a certificate of appealability. See M cIntosh
v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997). W e
review the district court's decision de novo, see Patterson v. Knowles, 162 F.3d
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant
to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998), and AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set
forth by the district court.
York filed a petition under § 2241 that failed to identify any constitutional
violations or facts giving rise to a constitutional violation. A magistrate judge
ordered York to file an amended habeas corpus petition clarifying his claims. The
district court review ed the amended petition and found that York again failed to
allege which of his constitutional rights had been violated and how they had been
violated. Having reviewed the record, this determination is clearly correct.
Although he does argue that the United States D epartment of Defense needs to
accept responsibility for his previous convictions, but is willing to concede that
the Central Intelligence Agency was “not much of a problem,” York’s petition,
even when construed liberally because he is proceeding pro se, does not even hint
at what constitutional violations may have taken place with regard to the
execution of his sentence. As such, the district court’s decision dismissing the
petition is AFFIRM ED. Further, because York does not raise “a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal,” M cIntosh, 115 F.3d at 812, we DENY his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. His letters, construed as motions, filed M arch 6, M arch 14, and M ay
-2-
22, 2006, are also DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-