FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 25, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT E. LOGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 09-1281
v. (D.C. No. 09-CV-00904-ZLW)
(D. Colo.)
DR. JOHN DeQUADO,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Vincent E. Loggins seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) allowing him to appeal the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court dismissed Mr. Loggins’
habeas application without prejudice for failing to clearly assert violations of his
federal constitutional rights. 1 R. Doc. 11. Because we conclude that Mr.
Loggins has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,
we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
From the record, it appears Mr. Loggins is an outpatient at the Colorado
Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado. 1 R. Doc. 7 at 1. In 1991, he was
found not guilty by reason of insanity for a sexual assault crime and was
committed to the Colorado Mental Health Institute. 1 R. Doc. 7 at 3 & attached
order, Colorado v. Loggins, Case No. 90CR271 (Fremont County, Colo. Dist. Ct.
Oct. 4, 2002). It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Loggins is currently in
custody.
Mr. Loggins initiated this action by filing a pro se motion seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a complaint against
the Department of Corrections, challenging his confinement and alleging various
claims for relief. 1 R. Docs. 1, 3. The magistrate judge apparently concluded
that Mr. Loggins was in custody and required him to file an application pursuant
to § 2241. 1 R. Doc. 8. On May 5, 2009, Mr. Loggins filed an application for a
writ of habeas corpus; however, the application raised claims different from those
in the initial complaint, claiming conflicts of interest among his attorney, the
prosecutor, and the victim in his state sexual assault trial, and claiming that Mr.
Loggins was the victim of sexual assault while in confinement. 1 R. Doc. 7 at 2-
3. On May 6, 2009, the magistrate judge denied as moot the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis because Mr. Loggins had paid the filing fee, and then
ordered Mr. Loggins to file an amended pleading clearly setting forth his claims
and factual allegations. 1 R. Doc. 8. Mr. Loggins next filed an amended
application, and his claims evolved once more, this time making a stark assertion
that he was denied due process. 1 R. Doc. 9 at 3. On June 19, 2009, the district
court denied Mr. Loggins’ original and amended habeas applications and
-2-
dismissed the action without prejudice. The court concluded that Mr. Loggins
“fail[ed] to assert clearly any violations of his federal constitutional rights.” 1 R.
Doc. 11 at 2.
To establish entitlement to a COA, Mr. Loggins must make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). When a district court denies a
habeas petition on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Id. at 484. When dismissed on procedural grounds, a
petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable (1) whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling, and (2) whether the petition
stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. Because Mr.
Loggins appears pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005); Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Upon reviewing Mr. Loggins amended petition, we conclude that he has
failed to allege facts upon which a legally sufficient claim can be based. See
Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. His allegations changed each time he filed a new
pleading with the court; however, at no point did Mr. Loggins clearly set forth the
factual background for his claims or the legal basis upon which he seeks relief.
Under the circumstances, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not
-3-
reasonably debatable.
We deny a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-