Blackwell v. Boehm

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-4081 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/24/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 24, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ANTONIA BLACKWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 25-4081 (D.C. No. 2:25-CV-00465-TS) MICHAEL BOEHM; DEBORAH (D. Utah) SNOW,

Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________

Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Petitioner Antonia Blackwell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her petition, Blackwell sought to challenge a bench

warrant issued against her in a state criminal proceeding. Because Blackwell

moved for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the district court

screened Blackwell’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-4081 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/24/2025 Page: 2

court found that Younger abstention applied, so it denied IFP and dismissed

Blackwell’s petition without prejudice. 1 Blackwell now appeals that dismissal.

However, Blackwell may not appeal unless she first secures a certificate

of appealability, which the district court denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A

certificate of appealability is not available unless “jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the district court was correct” in dismissing Blackwell’s

petition. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We conclude that

Blackwell has not met the standard for issuance of a certificate.

Younger abstention requires a federal court to “abstain from deciding a

case otherwise within the scope of its jurisdiction in ‘certain instances in which

the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings counsels against

federal relief.’” Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 953 F.3d 660,

669–70 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,

72 (2013)). Under this doctrine, the district court was required to abstain – and

therefore dismiss Blackwell’s petition – if (1) there was an ongoing state

criminal proceeding, (2) Blackwell could have raised her claims in that

proceeding, and (3) the state has an important interest. Graff v. Aberdeen

Enterprizes, II, Inc., 65 F.4th 500, 522–23 (10th Cir. 2023).

1Although the district court denied IFP for Blackwell’s petition, it subsequently granted IFP on appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). Doc. 24. 2 Appellate Case: 25-4081 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/24/2025 Page: 3

The district court correctly concluded that there were ongoing state

criminal proceedings against Blackwell, that Blackwell could have challenged

her bench warrant in those proceedings, and that the state has an important

interest in prosecuting criminal cases without federal interference. See Mesa

v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 138 (1989). We therefore conclude that Younger

abstention applies.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Blackwell’s

request for judicial notice, and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge