Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03258/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

BRETT WHEELER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

SAM CLINE, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 16-3258 

(D.C. Nos. 5:16-CV-03163-SAC) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Brett Wheeler, a Kansas prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

habeas application. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

In 1987, Mr. Wheeler was convicted of two counts of rape and two counts of 

aggravated criminal sodomy. He pursued a direct appeal and both state and federal 

post-conviction remedies. As relevant to this matter, in 2000 and 2008 he filed § 2254 

applications in district court. The district court dismissed the first application as 

untimely, see Wheeler v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., No. 00-3423-DES, slip op. at 4 (D. Kan. 

 

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3258 Document: 01019727846 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Nov. 29, 2001) (unpublished), and transferred the second to this court as an unauthorized 

second or successive § 2254 application, see Wheeler v. Kansas, No. 08-3098-SAC, 

slip op. at 2 (D. Kan. Apr. 17, 2008) (unpublished). We denied authorization for 

Mr. Wheeler to file that second habeas application. See In re Wheeler, No. 08-3107, 

slip op. at 3 (10th Cir. May 23, 2008) (unpublished). 

In 2016, Mr. Wheeler filed another § 2254 application. Noting that he already had 

pursued relief under § 2254, the district court dismissed the application as an 

unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to decide. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 2008) 

(per curiam). To appeal, Mr. Wheeler must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

Where, as here, a district court has dismissed a filing on procedural grounds, for a COA 

the movant must show both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Before this court, Mr. Wheeler ignores the procedural basis of the district court’s 

ruling, instead focusing on the merits of his habeas argument that one of his aggravated 

criminal sodomy convictions is invalid as being the product of a general verdict. But we 

need not consider the merits prong of the Slack test, because Mr. Wheeler cannot satisfy 

the procedure prong. No reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s determination 

that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the 2016 application. 

Appellate Case: 16-3258 Document: 01019727846 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Generally, once a prisoner’s first § 2254 application has been adjudicated on the 

merits, he cannot file another § 2254 application challenging the same conviction unless 

he obtains this court’s authorization, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). “A district court 

does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.” Cline, 531 F.3d at 

1251. The dismissal of Mr. Wheeler’s 2000 application as untimely counts as an 

adjudication on the merits. See In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(per curiam). Therefore, like his 2008 application, Mr. Wheeler’s 2016 application was 

subject to the restrictions on second or successive applications and required authorization. 

See id. Because Mr. Wheeler did not obtain this court’s authorization before filing his 

2016 habeas application, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. 

A COA is denied and this matter is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-3258 Document: 01019727846 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3