White vs. McKinna, No. 07-1029 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS June 4, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LARRY W HITE, Petitioner-A ppellant, v. LO U A . HESSE, Supt. C CF; JO E ORTIZ, Executive Director, CDOC; and JOHN W . SU THERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, No. 07-1093 (D.C. No. 06-cv-1901-ZLW ) (D . Colo.) Respondents-Appellees. -----------------------------------------------LARRY W HITE, Petitioner-A ppellant, v. No. 07-1029 (D.C. No. 06-cv-1194-WYD) (D. Colo.) M ARK M CKINNA, Supt. F.C.F. and JOHN W . SU THERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees. OR DER AND JUDGM ENT * * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G ). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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. Before LUC ER O, HA RTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. Larry W hite, a state prisoner incarcerated in Colorado, has litigated at least six previous federal habeas petitions before adding these two. M r. W hite s latest filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 complain about alleged unfairness in his parole proceedings. But even construing his petitions with the generosity due pro se matters, the two separate district courts assessing them noted that they merely repeat allegations contained, or make arguments that could have been brought, in M r. W hite s many previous petitions. Accordingly, both district courts dismissed M r. W hite s latest filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Both courts also warned M r. W hite that any future repetitive filings will result in the imposition of sanctions; denied M r. W hite s applications for leave to pursue appeals in form a pauperis, on the basis that his proposed appeals presented no reasoned argument in law or fact; and declined to issue M r. W hite certificates of appealability ( COA ). Our independent review of M r. W hite s proposed appellate filings confirms the appropriateness of each of these dispositions. Accordingly, we deny M r. W hite s requests for a COA, deny his requests to proceed in form a pauperis, deny his outstanding motions in this case, dismiss his appeals, and add our voice to those of the district courts in warning M r. W hite that future repetitive or abusive -2- filings in this court may be met by appropriate sanctions. See Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (10th Cir. 2007). So ordered. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Neil M . Gorsuch Circuit Judge -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
