ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Crownhart, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action challenging his current placement at the Grand Junction Regional Center, a Colorado state hospital. The district court noted that Crownhart is enjoined by filing restrictions. 1 Citing facial deficiencies in the petition and a failure to exhaust state court remedies, the court dismissed Crownhart’s action. It also denied his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”), concluding that any appeal taken would not be in good faith. On appeal, Crownhart asks this Court to issue a certificate of appeala-bility and to allow him to proceed informa pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction under § 1291, we decline those requests.

Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional requirement that we issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this burden, a petitioner must show “reasonable *556 jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (citations and quotations omitted).

Crownhart fails to meet this burden. As the district court noted, Crownhart’s challenge to his current confinement has already been addressed and dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB, 2013 WL 2237490 at *4 (D.Colo. May 21, 2013). Nothing in his present petition demonstrates that he has now exhausted his state court remedies or that the district court’s resolution of his case was in error. Accordingly, we deny his request for a certificate of appealability-

Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, any court of the United States may grant pauper status to “allow indigent persons to prosecute, defend or appeal suits without prepayment of costs.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 441, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). Here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the district court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Crownhart’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. In light of that action, we will only grant pauper status if we conclude that the appeal contains a non-frivolous argument. See Holland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).

Crownhart has not raised any discernible argument challenging the conclusion of the district court that this challenge to his current dentition was already addressed in Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB, 2013 WL 2237490 (D.Colo. May 21, 2013). For this reason, we conclude Crownhart’s appeal does not contain a non-frivolous argument, and we deny the motion for pauper status. Crownhart is therefore obligated to pay his filing fee in full.