Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01334/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Waldo J. Mackey
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: WALDO J. MACKEY, 

 Movant.

No. 16-1334

(D.C. No. 1:97-CV-01336-JLK-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Waldo J. Mackey, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, moves for 

authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. 

We deny authorization.

Mackey was convicted of first-degree murder in state court in Colorado in 1985. 

He is serving a sentence of 20 years’ to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, Mackey 

argued, among other things, that the trial court’s admission of a police officer’s testimony 

about the contents of Mackey’s apartment violated the Fourth Amendment. The state 

appellate court remanded to the trial court for further findings on two questions: whether 

Mackey had abandoned his apartment and whether there was impermissible juror 

preclusion. The trial court ultimately found that Mackey had abandoned his apartment, 

and the appellate court affirmed his conviction in 1988.

Mackey then filed a § 2254 application challenging the state trial court’s finding 

that he had abandoned his apartment. After the district court denied relief, we granted a 

certificate of appealability. We affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1334 Document: 01019689654 Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Page: 1 
2

state trial court’s finding was a colorable determination. Mackey v. Hatt, 53 F. App’x

506, 510 (10th Cir. 2002).

Mackey now seeks authorization to file a second or successive habeas application. 

He cannot proceed in the district court without first being authorized by this court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). We may authorize a claim only if the prisoner has not raised 

it in a previous § 2254 habeas application. See id. § 2244(b)(1). And we may not 

authorize a new claim unless it satisfies one or both of the requirements specified in 

§ 2244(b)(2). A new claim must rely on (1) “a new rule of constitutional law, made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable,” or (2) a factual predicate that “could not have been discovered previously 

through the exercise of due diligence” and that, “if proven and viewed in light of the 

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant 

guilty of the underlying offense.” Id. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). Mackey must make a prima 

facie showing that he can satisfy these gate-keeping requirements. See Case v. Hatch, 

731 F.3d 1015, 1028 (10th Cir. 2013).

Mackey asserts that he has new claims based on newly discovered factual 

predicates.1

 His claims relate to his transfer to a California prison shortly after his 

 1 We do not discuss one of Mackey’s claims, which he says is not based on a new 

rule of law or newly discovered facts.

Appellate Case: 16-1334 Document: 01019689654 Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Page: 2 
3

murder conviction in Colorado.

2

 He states that he remained incarcerated in California 

while his appeal was pending in Colorado, including when his case was remanded to the 

trial court for further findings. He now argues that by transferring him to California the 

state violated his constitutional rights because he was unable to participate in his appeal 

and the remand proceedings. Mackey maintains that the prosecutor and the trial court 

conspired to create a supplemental record on remand without his input, depriving him of 

an opportunity for a full and fair hearing. He also contends that his appellate counsel 

provided ineffective assistance in connection with the remand. Finally, Mackey argues 

that his transfer to a California prison prevented him from being involved in his appeal, 

leading to the ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel who refused to raise a 

violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).

Although Mackey asserts that these claims are based on newly discovered facts, he 

fails to identify any factual predicate that he could not have discovered previously 

through the exercise of due diligence. He admits that he was aware of the remand, but he

claims he had no knowledge of the trial court’s findings on remand. This assertion is 

belied by his first § 2254 application, filed in 1997, in which he challenged the trial 

court’s determination that he had abandoned his apartment. He also points to no new 

facts underlying his claim regarding an IAD violation.

 2 We note that when the murder charges were filed against him in Colorado, 

Mackey was extradited from California, where he had been serving a sentence for another 

offense. Mackey, 53 F. App’x at 508. As he acknowledges, he was transferred back to a 

California prison.

Appellate Case: 16-1334 Document: 01019689654 Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Page: 3 
4

Mackey’s motion for authorization is denied. This denial of authorization “shall 

not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of 

certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1334 Document: 01019689654 Date Filed: 09/16/2016 Page: 4