Hill v. Whetsel

140 F. App'x 807
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided August 18, 2005·No. 05-6104·Published

Opinion

ORDER

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Kenneth D. Hill, who has been detained pending his trial in Oklahoma state court on criminal charges, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief. 1 Hill’s § 2241 petition asserts various complaints, including allegations that there were delays following his arrest in holding a probable cause hearing, instituting formal charges, and conducting an arraignment. The district court dismissed Hill’s petition because he failed to exhaust the available state court remedies.

A state detainee bringing a § 2241 claim must be granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) prior to being heard on the merits of his or her appeal. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867-69 (10th Cir. 2000). Because the district court denied Hill a COA, we deem Hill’s notice of appeal to be a renewed application for a COA. See Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(2). However, we DENY Hill a COA for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its orders dismissing Hill’s § 2241 petition and denying Hill a COA. Therefore, we DISMISS Hill’s appeal. 2

1

. We GRANT Hill’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

2

. In light of our disposition of Hill's appeal, we DENY as MOOT the other motions that Hill has filed.

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

Hill v. Whetsel, 140 F. App'x 807 (10th Cir. 2005).

140 F. App'x 807 (Hill v. Whetsel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Montez v. McKinna
208 F.3d 862 (Tenth Circuit, 2000)