Gallagher v. Hannigan

Tenth Circuit

Gallagher v. Hannigan

24 F.3d 68, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7775

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1994

Docket93-3397

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 24 F.3d 68 (Gallagher v. Hannigan) 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

Gallagher v. Hannigan, 24 F.3d 68, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7775 (10th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

24 F.3d 68

Michael P. GALLAGHER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Robert D. HANNIGAN, Warden; Kansas Department of
Corrections; Attorney General of Kansas; Joan
Finney, Governor and Kansas Parole
Board, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-3397.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

April 15, 1994.

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Michael P. Gallagher has filed a motion to proceed without payment of fees and an application for a certificate of probable cause. The district court dismissed the petition because petitioner had failed to first raise in the state courts the issues asserted in the federal habeas action. There is no question that conclusion is correct.

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of an important federal right by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). The certificate of probable cause is therefore DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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