Czajkowski v. Roybal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: 24-1280
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1280 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 29, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CONRAD J. CZAJKOWSKI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 24-1280 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00548-LTB-SBP) JOE ROYBAL; KIM KARN; AINSILE (D. Colo.) NEUBERT,

Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Petitioner Conrad J. Czajkowski, a state prisoner, seeks a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Czajkowski also moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons stated below, we deny Mr. Czajkowski a COA,

deny his motion to proceed IFP, and dismiss this matter.

I. BACKGROUND

Before the district court, Mr. Czajkowski—who is currently imprisoned pending

the resolution of state criminal charges—asserted that his Sixth Amendment speedy trial

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-1280 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 2

rights were being violated. The district court dismissed his action for lack of jurisdiction

under the Younger abstention doctrine after adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation.1 Mr. Czajkowski then filed this appeal.2

In his application for a COA, Mr. Czajkowski asserts for the first time in this

litigation that his First Amendment right to freedom of religion is being violated because

he has been taken to Saturday court sessions in violation of his Jewish faith.

Mr. Czajkowski did not assert a claim under the First Amendment in the district court.

However, Mr. Czajkowski is currently litigating another case before the district court

concerning his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. See ECF No. 4 (Prisoner

Complaint), Czajkowski v. Polis et al., No. 1:23-cv-01654-PAB-MDB (D. Colo.). Those

proceedings are not implicated in Mr. Czajkowski’s instant request for a COA to

challenge the dismissal of his habeas corpus action.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To appeal the district court's denial of his § 2254 petition, Mr. Czajkowski must

first obtain a COA, which is available only if Mr. Czajkowski can establish “a substantial

1 The doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971), “provides that a federal court must 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 (quoting Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013)). 2 Because the district court dismissed Mr. Czajkowski’s complaint before Respondents were served, Respondents did not appear in the district court litigation and have not entered an appearance in this court.

2 Appellate Case: 24-1280 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 3

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Making this

showing requires Mr. Czajkowski to demonstrate 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) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, the district court concluded Mr. Czajkowski

had failed to meet this burden and denied him a COA.

Mr. Czajkowski proceeds pro se. We construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings

liberally, holding them to a “less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). At the same time, “this

court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that

govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840

(10th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). As such, “the court cannot take on the

responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and

searching the record.” Kincaid v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500, 94 F.4th 936, 947 (10th Cir.

2024) (quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

We generally decline to reach an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See

United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir. 2012) (declining to consider

arguments for COA that pro se applicant failed to present in district court); see also

McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting our

general rule against considering new arguments on appeal). In this case, were we to

3 Appellate Case: 24-1280 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 4

consider Mr. Czajkowski’s arguments, we would risk prejudging legal issues that are

actively pending in litigation before the district court. See ECF Nos. 31, 33 (Motions to

Dismiss concerning First Amendment freedom of religion claim), Czajkowski v. Polis et

al., No. 1:23-cv-01654-PAB-MDB (D. Colo.). This we will not do. See New Mexico ex

rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 701 (10th Cir. 2009) (observing

that it is inappropriate to prejudge the merits of another pending case). We decline to

consider the new First Amendment arguments Mr. Czajkowski raises for the first time in

his application for a COA.

Mr. Czajkowski asserts no arguments concerning the dismissal of his habeas

petition based on the alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. In the absence of

any argument concerning the subject of his complaint before the district court, we cannot

conclude that Mr. Czajkowski has demonstrated 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. at 336 (quoting Slack,

529 U.S. at 484). We therefore deny Mr. Czajkowski’s request for a COA.

Finally, we turn to Mr. Czajkowski’s motion to proceed IFP. To proceed IFP,

Mr. Czajkowski must present “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in

support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505

(10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Czajkowski has not shown the existence of a nonfrivolous argument

in support of the issues raised in his COA application, and therefore we deny his motion

to proceed IFP. Mr. Czajkowski is accordingly required to pay the filing fee.

4 Appellate Case: 24-1280 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 5

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we DENY Mr. Czajkowski’s application for a COA,

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam