* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 24 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES E. CAGLE, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RON CHAMPION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-7109 (D.C. No. 96-CV-12) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Mr. James E. Cagle appeals the district court's dis missal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994).
On October 31, 1995, Mr. Cagle filed a petition fora writ of habeas corpus raising numerous challenges to his convictions in the District Court of Seminole County for conspiracy and first degree murder. On August 23, 1996, the district court issued an minute order dismissing Mr. Cagle's petition solely on the basis that he "ha[d] a pending case in th[e] court attack ing the same conviction."
On appeal, Mr. Cagle contends the district court de nied him due process of law by granting respondents an extension of time in which to respond to his petition and by dismissing his petition based on a pending petition attacking the same convictions. Mr. Cagle asserts he is not atta cking his convictions in both petitions, rather he is appealing from rulings or o rders issued in two different courts.
Unfortunately, we cannot review Mr. Cagle's content ions. The district court's cursory dismissal of Mr. Cagle's petition h as left us without the necessary findings and reasoning to conduct a meaningful revi ew of Mr. Cagle's contentions on appeal. See Joseph A. by Wolfe v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Ser vs. , 691 If the district court finds Mr. Cagle's petition is a second successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and it is without the proper authorization from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), the distri ct court should transfer the petition to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and Coleman v. United States , 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997). -3- F.3d 1081, 1089 (10th Cir. 1995) (remanded for nece ssary findings to facilitate appellate review), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1678 (1996); ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre , 45 F.3d 1455, 1459 (10th Cir. 1995) (appellate re view impossible without anything in the record to indicate how the district court made it’s determination). Based on the district court's minu te order and the record on appeal, we cannot discern whether Mr. Cagle's Octob er 31, 1995, petition is a successive petition to the "pending case" in the di strict court subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) or is in fact a new petition challenging separate convictions from a different court, as Mr. Cagle co ntends. 1
Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court dismissing Mr. Cagle's October 31, 1995, petition and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, all other pending motions are DENIED
. Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge