Appellate Case: 21-3212 Document: 010110682721 Date Filed: 05/11/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
TAMIKA J. PLEDGER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 21-3212
(D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03168-JWL)
GLORIA GEITHER, Warden, Topeka (D. Kan.)
Correctional Facility
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Tamika Pledger was convicted by a jury in Kansas state court for involuntary
manslaughter and reckless aggravated battery. The charges led to a sentence of 64
months’ imprisonment. She unsuccessfully challenged her sentence on various
grounds through state court proceedings in Kansas. Afterward, she filed a habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District of Kansas. In a single order, the
district court denied her request for habeas relief and her request for a certificate of
appealability (“COA”), the latter of which is a prerequisite to appealing whether her
§ 2254 petition was properly denied. She now seeks a COA from this court.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the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.
Appellate Case: 21-3212 Document: 010110682721 Date Filed: 05/11/2022 Page: 2
A COA may issue if Pledger “has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, she must
establish “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court applied our precedent, stating that Pledger was not entitled to
habeas relief after analyzing her various challenges to her sentence. 1 So, it denied
Pledger’s request for a COA. Having reviewed the record before us, we find no error
in the district court’s thorough 17-page order. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm. 2
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
1
Pledger’s challenges in the district court were: (1) the Kansas the trial court
lacked jurisdiction over her charges; (2) her sentence is cruel and unusual under the
Constitution; (3) she was not arraigned, and her Speedy Trial rights were violated;
(4) Brady violations; (5) certain evidence should have been suppressed as the fruit of
an illegal, warrantless search and seizure of her car and phones; (6) the special
prosecutor at her trial had an impermissible conflict of interest; (7) her sentence
violated the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy clause; and (8) the trial judge was
biased.
2
For an in forma pauperis motion to be granted an appellant must show that
she is unable to pay the required filing fee, and she must have a reasoned and
nonfrivolous argument to support her appeal. DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d
502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). We conclude that Pledger has met her burden and grant
her motion.
2