Akothe v. Bear

Tenth Circuit

Akothe v. Bear

707 F. App'x 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 2017

Docket17-6221

StatusUnpublished

This text of 707 F. App'x 568 (Akothe v. Bear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akothe v. Bear, 707 F. App'x 568 (10th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

The district court denied Oklahoma state prisoner Mario Akothe’s application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To appeal that ruling, Mr. Akothe must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”). To obtain a COA, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); accord Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2007).

Mr. Akothe does not address timeliness in his brief requesting a COA. Although we liberally construe Mr. Akothe’s filings because he represents himself, we do not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Without an argument from Mr. Akothe as to why reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s ruling, we must deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Mr. Akothe’s motion to proceed informa pau-peris,

*

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

The district court denied Oklahoma state prisoner Mario Akothe’s application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To appeal that ruling, Mr. Akothe must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”). To obtain a COA, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); accord Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2007).

Mr. Akothe does not address timeliness in his brief requesting a COA. Although we liberally construe Mr. Akothe’s filings because he represents himself, we do not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Without an argument from Mr. Akothe as to why reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s ruling, we must deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Mr. Akothe’s motion to proceed informa pau-peris,

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 F. App'x 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akothe-v-bear-ca10-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack