Mayfield v. Ruiz, No. 17-2107 (10th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ EARL R. MAYFIELD, November 28, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-2107 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00193-JCH-KRS) (D.N.M.) TOM RUIZ, Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALBILITY _________________________________ Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Earl R. Mayfield, appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mayfield v. Ruiz, No. 17-CV-00193-JCHKRS, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3 (D.N.M. May 19, 2017). We deny his application for a COA and dismiss the appeal. On February 1, 2017, Mr. Mayfield was convicted of trafficking controlled substances, tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. Id. at *1. He was sentenced by the state court to 19 years’ imprisonment. Id. On February 6, 2017, he filed a federal habeas petition. Id. The district court noted that his direct appeal was still pending in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, State of New Mexico v. Earl Mayfield, No. D-202-CR-2012-02229 (N.M. Ct. App. appeal docketed Sept. 19, 2017), and therefore dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Mayfield, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3. We may grant a COA only if Mr. Mayfield establishes that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, the district court denied Mr. Mayfield’s habeas petition on procedural grounds for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Mayfield, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3. Reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Mayfield’s claims on procedural grounds. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), an application for a writ of habeas corpus requires a showing of exhaustion. A federal court should not grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner unless the prisoner has “give[n] the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Mr. Mayfield has not given the New Mexico state courts such an opportunity. His appeal is still pending before the New Mexico Court of Appeals. See Mayfield, No. D-202-CR-2012-02229. 2 Therefore, we DENY Mr. Mayfield’s request for a COA, DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Paul J Kelly, Jr. 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.
