Brooks v. Archuleta, 040518 FED10, 17-1460
|Opinion Judge:||MICHAEL R. MURPHY CIRCUIT JUDGE|
|Party Name:||JASON BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LOU ARCHULETA, Warden; CYNTHIA COFFMAN, The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents - Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 05, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00895-LTB) (D. Colo.)
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
MICHAEL R. MURPHY CIRCUIT JUDGE
Proceeding pro se, Jason Brooks seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") from this court so he can appeal the district court's denial of the motion he filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding a petitioner must obtain a COA before he can appeal from the denial of a "true" Rule 60(b) motion). Brooks also seeks authorization to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The matter currently before this court began on April 20, 2016, when Brooks filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court. The district court dismissed the habeas petition on July 26, 2016, concluding the claim raised by Brooks was unexhausted and procedurally barred.1 In March 2017, Brooks's request for a COA was denied by this court and his appeal was dismissed. Brooks v. Archuleta, 681 Fed.Appx. 705, 707 (10th Cir. 2017). Brooks returned to district court and filed a motion seeking relief from that court's July 2016 judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was denied by the district court and this court denied Brooks's request for a COA. Brooks v. Archuleta, 702 Fed.Appx. 790, 793 (10th Cir. 2017).
Brooks filed a second Rule 60(b)(6) motion in district court on December 11, 2017. In this motion, he argued the federal claim raised in his § 2254 petition is exhausted because the substance of the claim was presented to the Colorado Court of Appeals in state post-conviction proceedings he initiated on March 7, 2016.2 The district court disagreed, concluding the state post-conviction proceedings referenced by Brooks were not completed until nearly a year after Brooks's § 2254 petition was...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP