F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
June 4, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LARRY W HITE,
Petitioner-A ppellant,
v. No. 07-1093
(D.C. No. 06-cv-1901-ZLW )
LO U A . HESSE, Supt. C CF; JO E (D . Colo.)
ORTIZ, Executive Director, CDOC; and
JOHN W . SU THERS, Attorney General
of the State of Colorado,
Respondents-Appellees.
------------------------------------------------
LARRY W HITE,
No. 07-1029
Petitioner-A ppellant, (D.C. No. 06-cv-1194-WYD)
v. (D. Colo.)
M ARK M CKINNA, Supt. F.C.F. and
JOHN W . SU THERS, Attorney General
of the State of Colorado,
Respondents-Appellees.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
*
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 ).
This 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judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Before LUC ER O, HA RTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Larry W hite, a state prisoner incarcerated in Colorado, has litigated at least
six previous federal habeas petitions before adding these two. M r. W hite’s latest
filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 complain about alleged unfairness in his
parole proceedings. But even construing his petitions with the generosity due pro
se matters, the two separate district courts assessing them noted that they merely
repeat allegations contained, or make arguments that could have been brought, in
M r. W hite’s many previous petitions. Accordingly, both district courts dismissed
M r. W hite’s latest filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Both courts also warned
M r. W hite that any future repetitive filings will result in the imposition of
sanctions; denied M r. W hite’s applications for leave to pursue appeals in form a
pauperis, on the basis that his proposed appeals presented no reasoned argument
in law or fact; and declined to issue M r. W hite certificates of appealability
(“COA”).
Our independent review of M r. W hite’s proposed appellate filings confirms
the appropriateness of each of these dispositions. Accordingly, we deny M r.
W hite’s requests for a COA, deny his requests to proceed in form a pauperis, deny
his outstanding motions in this case, dismiss his appeals, and add our voice to
those of the district courts in warning M r. W hite that future repetitive or abusive
-2-
filings in this court may be met by appropriate sanctions. See Andrews v. Heaton,
483 F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (10th Cir. 2007). So ordered.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M . Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-