Case Explained: Tanner v. State of Wyoming, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 Docket: 2:25-CV-00001-ABJ) The Tenth Circuit denied Richard W. Tanner’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court also denied Tanner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court applied the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which requires a petitioner to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to obtain a COA. This showing is met only if the issues are debatable among jurists of reason or would warrant further proceedings. The court held that Tanner failed to meet this standard for two primary reasons. First, regarding his claim that the Wyoming Supreme Court misapplied state law under the Wyoming Post-Conviction Determination of Factual Innocence Act, the court cited *Bradshaw v. Richey* and *Estelle v. McGuire*, ruling that a federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court’s interpretation of its own state law. Second, regarding his assertions of constitutional violations—specifically ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to consider mental health issues, and refusal to consider exculpatory evidence—the court found these claims were unsupported by any factual allegations. The court determined that bare assertions are insufficient to satisfy the “substantial showing” requirement or to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment debatable. Additionally, because Tanner failed to present a nonfrivolous argument on the merits, he was ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. The practical consequence is that the appeal is dismissed, and no further federal habeas proceedings will occur based on this petition. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.