Knox v. Trammell

Tenth Circuit

Knox v. Trammell

568 F. App'x 654

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2014

Docket14-6069

StatusUnpublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 654 (Knox v. Trammell) 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

Knox v. Trammell, 568 F. App'x 654 (10th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Antone Knox, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certifícate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. In his habeas petition, Petitioner challenged the state parole board’s denial of his request for parole. The district court concluded Petitioner was not enti-tied to habeas relief because Oklahoma’s parole system is discretionary and therefore does not give rise to a protected liberty interest. See Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1015 (10th Cir.1994); see also Shabazz v. Keating, 977 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Okla.1999). The district court further concluded that the second claim in the petition, which was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, could not be brought in a habeas proceeding and should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions, in which he asks this court to inform him if any of the documents he mailed to the court are missing as a result of prison officials’ alleged tampering with his legal mail, and, if so, to impose sanctions on Defendant. We have received and reviewed all pertinent documents, and we accordingly DENY the motion for sanctions. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED.

*

This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Antone Knox, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certifícate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. In his habeas petition, Petitioner challenged the state parole board’s denial of his request for parole. The district court concluded Petitioner was not enti-tied to habeas relief because Oklahoma’s parole system is discretionary and therefore does not give rise to a protected liberty interest. See Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1015 (10th Cir.1994); see also Shabazz v. Keating, 977 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Okla.1999). The district court further concluded that the second claim in the petition, which was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, could not be brought in a habeas proceeding and should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions, in which he asks this court to inform him if any of the documents he mailed to the court are missing as a result of prison officials’ alleged tampering with his legal mail, and, if so, to impose sanctions on Defendant. We have received and reviewed all pertinent documents, and we accordingly DENY the motion for sanctions. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED.

*

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)

568 F. App'x 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knox-v-trammell-ca10-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack