Appellate Case: 25-1150 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 08/27/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

August 27, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ___________________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GREGG PHILIP MCMURTRY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v. No. 25-1150 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-01978-LTB-RTG) COLORADO BOULDER COUNTY (D. Colo.) COURTS (ALL JUDGES),

Respondent – Appellee. _________________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY __________________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. ___________________________________________

Mr. Gregg McMurtry seeks habeas relief, claiming that he shouldn’t

be subject to pretrial detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court

denied habeas relief based on the need to abstain and Mr. McMurtry’s

failure to clearly state a cognizable claim. Mr. McMurtry seeks to appeal,

but he can do so only by obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A).

We can issue the certificate only upon a showing that reasonable

jurists could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling on the

need to abstain and the failure to state a cognizable claim. Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Because Mr. McMurtry appears pro Appellate Case: 25-1150 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 08/27/2025 Page: 2

se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.”

James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

Even liberally construed, Mr. McMurtry’s brief fails to address the

district court’s reliance on abstention. We thus deny Mr. McMurtry’s

request for a certificate of appealability. See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of

Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The first task of an

appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”).

And in the absence of a certificate, we dismiss the matter. 1

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

1 Mr. McMurtry has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Because he cannot afford the filing fee, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 2