The appeal was determined to be taken in bad-faith on the following issues:
First, an issue of first impression raises the question of whether the collateral order
doctrine can be invoked by a party who was deprived of an opportunity to preserve the
issues for appellate review based on the denial of an extension of time to file Objections
by the District Court. This issue directly impedes a party's ability to establish claims
warrant a jury trial by precluding them from vital discovery on closely related claims,
resulting in the dismissal of indispensable Defendants, while other claims are allowed
to proceed to discovery against other involved Defendants. The Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals failed to give Petitioner the benefit of the prison mailbox rule established by
this Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) and actually misrepresents
the date that a motion for extension of time was filed thereby excepting itself from
accepting a properly raised claim of abuse of discretion and depriving Petitioner of
review for the merits of each question brought before this Court.
Secondly, the Colorado Department of Corrections has a long history of violating due
process protections set forth by this Court in Wolff v McDonnell, 418 U.S. 538 (1974),
violating prisoners' right to pursue post-conviction claims, and punishing prisoners for
exercising their right to petition to state courts for relief. The Tenth Circuit subscribes
to the customs practiced by prison officials which nullify the purposes of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997. In accomplishing the effects of this prevailing
pact between the judicial and executive branches of government, Petitioner faces an
unsustainable condition of confinement on the following question which, if reviewed,
would further the interests of justice in the federal courts by awarding state prisoners
with federal relief supplementary to the state relief already obtained.
Petitioner's case asks this Court to decide the following questions of significant
importance in prisoner rights cases:
WHETHER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE, 28 U.S.C. §1292, SHOULD
APPLY IN INSTANCES WHERE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PRO-SE PRISONER
TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PRETRIAL STAGES OF LITIGATION WERE PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION
BASED ON THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO
FILE OBJECTIONS?
WHETHER 42 U.S.C. §1983 RELIEF IS WARRANTED FOR UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS AGAINST PRISON OFFICIALS WHEN THE PRISONER WAS
THE 'PREVAILING PARTY IN SUBSTANIALLY REALTED STATE CLAIMS AND
HAS RECEIVED ONLY PARTIAL RELIEF IN STATE PROCEEDINGS?

Whether the collateral order doctrine can be invoked when a party is deprived of an opportunity to preserve issues for appellate review