Amrine v. Jones , 477 F. App'x 531 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                      FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit
    TENTH CIRCUIT                              September 6, 2012
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    NICHOLAS AMRINE,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    No. 12-5105
    v.                                                (D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00498-JHP-FHM)
    (N.D. Okla.)
    JUSTIN JONES, Director; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    OKLAHOMA,
    Respondents – Appellees.
    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
    AND DISMISSING APPEAL
    Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
    Nicholas Amrine, an Oklahoma state prisoner, proceeding pro se, wants to appeal
    from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 habeas petition. The district court dismissed
    his petition because: 1) it was barred by the AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations; 2)
    Amrine had not identified a state-imposed impediment which might have excused his
    delay in filing; and 3) he had not demonstrated entitlement to equitable tolling. We deny
    his request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
    Amrine’s brief to this court argues the merits of his petition but does not address
    the fundamental problem leading to the dismissal: the statute of limitations. We consider
    only contentions that have been adequately developed. See Chambers v. Barnhart, 
    389 F.3d 1139
    , 1142 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The scope of our review . . . is limited to the issues
    the claimant . . . adequately presents on appeal.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and
    alteration omitted)). Because the statute of limitations bars Amrine’s habeas petition, we
    cannot consider the merits of his claims.
    We DENY the request for a COA and DISMISS this matter.
    Inexplicably, the district court granted leave to proceed on appeal without
    prepayment of fees. While prepayment of fees has been excused, Amrine is,
    nevertheless, ultimately responsible for all filing and docketing fees and must pay them to
    the Clerk of the District Court. See Kinnell v. Graves, 
    265 F.3d 1125
    , 1129 (10th Cir.
    2001) (recognizing dismissal of an appeal does not relieve appellant of the obligation to
    pay the filing and docket fees in full).
    Entered by the Court:
    Terrence L. O’Brien
    United States Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-5105

Citation Numbers: 477 F. App'x 531

Judges: Lucero, Matheson, O'Brien

Filed Date: 9/6/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023