Crownhart v. People of Mesa County CO, The et al
Filing
5
ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and this action is dismissed. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/8/13. (sgrim)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00575-BNB
EARL J. CROWNHART,
Applicant,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF MESA COUNTY, COLORADO,
CHRIS NARRBONNIE, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Earl J. Crownhart, acting pro se, initiated this action on March 7, 2013,
by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a
Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a
Habeas Corpus Action. Applicant was granted leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915 on
March 7, 2013.
Applicant’s claims generally are unintelligible. However, it is clear that Applicant
is challenging a conviction in Colorado State Criminal Case No. 09CR1445, a case that
was closed on October 26, 2012. See Application at 7. It also is clear that Applicant is
challenging his current placement at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo,
Colorado, which is the same issue Applicant is challenging in Crownhart v. Quinn, et al.,
No. 12-cv-03053-BNB (filed Nov. 19, 2012). This case will be dismissed for the
following reasons.
Pursuant to § 2254(a), “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of
Treaties of the United States.” An individual seeking habeas corpus relief must be in
custody under the challenged conviction or sentence at the time the application is filed.
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. at 490-91 (citing Carafas v. LaVellee, 391 U.S. 234, 238
(1968)). Relief generally is unavailable through a writ of habeas corpus when an
applicant seeks to challenge a prior conviction for which the person no longer is in
custody. See Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001).
Applicant, therefore, may not challenge his conviction in Case No. 09CR1445 because
he no longer is in custody pursuant to that conviction and was not in custody when he
filed this § 2254 Application. This action is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
In addition, repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975) (per
curiam). The Court may consult its own records to determine whether a pleading
repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471
(10th Cir. 1972). As stated above, the claims Applicant asserts in this action are
repetitive of his claims in Case No. 12-cv-03053. This action is subject to dismissal as
either frivolous or malicious. Nonetheless, the Court will dismiss the action for lack of
jurisdiction.
2
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If
Applicant files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) for
lack of jurisdiction. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue because
Applicant has failed to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable that the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
Dated March 8, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
