Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06247/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jackie Wayne Burk
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: JACKIE WAYNE BURK, 

Movant. 

No. 07-6247

(D.C. No. 02-cv-1589-F)

ORDER

Filed November 6, 2007

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Jackie Wayne Burk, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks authorization

to file a second or successive petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

We deny his request.

Mr. Burk was convicted in Oklahoma in 2000 of unlawful possession of a

controlled substance with intent to distribute and use of a weapon during the

commission of a felony. His convictions were affirmed on appeal, and he was

denied post-conviction relief. In 2002, Mr. Burk filed his first § 2254 habeas

petition, claiming actual innocence and illegal search and seizure in violation of

the Fourth Amendment. That petition was denied on the merits, Burk v. Beck,

No. CIV-02-1589-F (W.D. Okla. Apr. 22, 2003) (unpublished), and we denied a

certificate of appealability, Burk v. Beck, No. 03-6137 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2003)

(unpublished). Now Mr. Burk seeks authorization to file a second petition for

Appellate Case: 07-6247 Document: 010164750 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 1
-2-

federal habeas relief, again asserting illegal search and seizure, but also

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

To obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition,

Mr. Burk must make a prima facie showing that his claims meet the requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Specifically, he must show that his

claims were not raised in a prior petition, id. § 2244(b)(1), and that they are based

on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court that previously was unavailable, id. § 2244(b)(2)(A), or on

facts previously undiscoverable through the exercise of due diligence that would

establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was not guilty of the offenses,

id. § 2244(b)(2)(B). 

Neither of Mr. Burk’s claims satisfy the criteria of § 2244(b). His first

contention – that he was convicted with evidence procured through an illegal

search and seizure – was raised in his prior § 2254 petition. And his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim alleges only that prison research assistants failed to

adequately assist him in preparing his post-conviction arguments. He does not

argue, let alone show, that this latter claim is based on a new, retroactive rule of

constitutional law, or on previously undiscoverable facts that establish his

innocence. Thus, because neither claim satisfies § 2244(b), we cannot authorize

Mr. Burk to file a successive habeas petition.

Appellate Case: 07-6247 Document: 010164750 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 2
-3-

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED, and the matter is TERMINATED. 

Mr. Burk’s motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-6247 Document: 010164750 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 3