UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ HERMAN TRACY CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JEROLD BRAGGS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 19-6105 (D.C. No. 5:19- CV-00360-D) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

________________ _________________ Before McHUGH , KELLY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Petitioner-Appellant Herman Tracy Clark seeks to appeal from th e district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2 241 petition without prejudice. Clark v. Braggs, 2019 WL 2476751 at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 1 3, 2019). The magistrate judge assigned recommended denial of the petition concludi ng that Mr. Clark lacks a protec ted property or liberty interest in discretionary parol e, Clark v. Braggs, 2019 WL 2477 634 at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 9, 2019). See Burnett v. Fa llin, 754 F. App’x 696, 702-03 (10th Cir. 2018). The district court agreed, but also construed the petition as chall enging the validity of Mr. Clark’s life sentence. The distr ict court deni ed it reasoning that Mr. Clark would need

 This order is not binding prec edent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral esto ppel. It may be cited, howeve r, 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 

### October 30, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 authorization from this court to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Clark, 2019 WL 2476751 at *2. The di strict court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA) , 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Clark is subject to filing re strictions in this court. In re Clark, 13-6053 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2013) (order) (“[W]e direct that any further appl ications, motions, or other filings collaterally attacking M r. Clark’s 1975 Oklahoma murder conviction will be deemed denied on the fifteenth calendar day after filing unless this court otherwise orders.”). On July 18, 2019, we or dered Mr. Clark to show caus e why these filing restrictions do not a pply to this appeal. Mr. Clark argues that the filing restrictions apply only to sec ond or successive § 2254 applications, not petiti ons under § 2241. We are not pe rsuaded, but regardless, the district court observed that this proceeding is an attempt to challenge the validity of Mr. Clark’s life sentence by a di fferent procedural vehicle. C lark, 2019 WL 2476751 at *1. We agree. Indeed, Mr. Cla rk’s petition states that he is challenging “[t]he validity of [his] conviction or sen tence as imposed.” R. 4. Mr. Clark also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). He mu st show (1) that the appeal is taken in good fa ith, and (2) that he is unable to pay the required fees.
McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10t h Cir. 1997). In view of our determination that this proceeding is barred by the fili ng restrictions, we conclude that Mr. Clark fails to show that this appeal was taken in good faith. We also conclude that none of Mr. Clark’s papers show a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and3 facts in support of the issues ra ised on appeal.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999). We DENY a COA, DENY IFP , and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge