UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JEFFERSON DAVIS, Responden t - Appellee. No. 18-3174 (D.C. No. 5:18- CV-03188-SAC) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before PHILLIPS , McKAY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Before the court is Anthony Leroy Davis’s application for a cer tificate of appealability (COA). Davis is se rving a life sentence in Kansas state prison for firstdegree murder, aggravated arson, a nd aggravated robbery. The di strict court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and his initial application for a COA. Davis now appeals these rulings, pro se . Before Davis’s appeal may proceed, however, he must obtain a COA from this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We wil l issue a COA only where “the applicant has made a s ubstantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner mus t

* This order is not binding preced ent, except under the doctrine s of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 14, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 demonstrate that reasonable juri sts would find the district cou rt’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In his appellate brief, Davis ra ises a litany of issues—includi ng that the district court judge should have recused himself and that the state of K ansas violated his First Amendment rights because of his race. Unfortunately, he did not raise any of these issues in his petition, and we do not consider issues raised fo r the first time in a COA application. See United States v. Moya , 676 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012); Smith v.
Farris , 662 F. App’x 641 (10th Cir. 2016). The only question presente d in his petition is a nonsensical one, which has nothing to do with his convicti on or incarceration: Whether or not the socialist speech of hogwash by the Reverend King Martin Luther, Jr., “I had a dr eam” ideations coup’etat democra cy postbellum cartel nightmare fra ught with devout disfranchised unconstitutional confederacy democ ratic parties charged with ca rteblanche abolitionism overruling republican party capitaist fede ralisted constitutional government, reciprocal? ROA at 31 (misspellings in origin al). We, of course, construe pro se pleadings liberally. But Davis’s petition , in which he names “Jefferson D avis, President of the Confederacy” as a defendant and provides an interesting history of the Civil War, is indecipherable and in no way re lates to his incarceration. Id. at 17–40. Because reasonable jurists would not fi nd the district court’s assessme nt of Davis’s constitutional claims debatable o r wrong, we must deny his appl ication for a COA.
Slack , 529 U.S. at 484.3 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, D avis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a certificat e of appealability are DENIED

.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge