Woods v. Zavaras ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    MAY 29 1998
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    TENTH CIRCUIT                           PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    DOUGLAS TYLER WOODS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,                      No. 97-1395
    v.                                               (D. Colorado)
    ARISTEDES ZAVARAS; BILL                              (D.C. No. 96-M-1964)
    WILSON, and ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    COLORADO,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
    the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    Petitioner Douglas Tyler Woods appeals the district court’s dismissal,
    without prejudice, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to exhaust
    state remedies. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability. We
    have examined the record in this case, and conclude that Mr. Woods has failed to
    make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We therefore
    deny Mr. Woods a certificate of appealability and dismiss his appeal. While Mr.
    Woods has filed copies of documents purporting to show exhaustion, there is no
    dispute that his claims were not exhausted at the time he filed his habeas petition.
    Claims must be exhausted before the petition is filed to satisfy the exhaustion
    requirement. See Demarest v. Price, 
    130 F.3d 922
    , 932 (10th Cir. 1997);
    Parkhurst v. Wyoming, 
    641 F.2d 775
    , 776 (10th Cir. 1981).
    Mr. Woods’ various other outstanding motions are denied. His petition for
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot, in light of the district
    court’s previous grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Appeal
    DISMISSED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephen H. Anderson
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1395

Filed Date: 5/29/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021