Filed: Dec. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 21, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH- PARRADO, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-3336 v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-03175-SAC) (D. Kansas) PRISONER REVIEW BOARD; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Frequent litigant Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado filed an applic
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 21, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH- PARRADO, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-3336 v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-03175-SAC) (D. Kansas) PRISONER REVIEW BOARD; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Frequent litigant Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado filed an applica..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 21, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH-
PARRADO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 11-3336
v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-03175-SAC)
(D. Kansas)
PRISONER REVIEW BOARD;
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Frequent litigant Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado filed an application under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in
which he challenged the decision to deny him release on parole and complained of
the conditions of his confinement. The district court dismissed without prejudice
his challenge to the denial of parole on the ground that he had not exhausted his
state administrative remedies. And it dismissed without prejudice his challenge
to the conditions of confinement because such a challenge is not appropriate
under § 2241.
Mr. Parrish-Parrado seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the
district court’s decision. See Montez v. McKinna,
208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000)
(requiring COA to challenge denial of § 2241 claim by state prisoner). For the
reasons stated in the district court’s decision, he is clearly not entitled to a COA.
We therefore DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Mr. Parrish-Parrado’s
motion to reconsider is denied as moot.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-2-