UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN BALTAZAR, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 18-3162

(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-03138-JTM)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Philip Andra Grigsby, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing 

it for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

Grigsby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas of several crimes and given a lengthy prison sentence. His § 2255 motion was 

denied by the district court and we denied a COA. He also filed in this court three 

motions for authorization, which were all denied. Not long ago, he filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

 * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, 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

December 3, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court
2

60(b)(4) motion in the district court, which the court construed as an unauthorized § 2255 

motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. We denied a COA. United States v. 

Grigsby, 715 F. App’x 868, 869 (10th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Most recently, Grigsby, 

who is incarcerated in Tucson, filed a § 2241 petition in the United States District Court 

for the District of Arizona. At the same time, he sent copies of his Arizona petition and 

supporting brief to the Kansas federal court, which in turn docketed the petition as Case 

No. 5:18-CV-03138-JTM. 

On July 24, 2018, the Kansas district court held that Grigsby’s § 2241 petition was 

an attack on his conviction and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized 

successive § 2255 motion. Grigsby moved to strike the order arguing that he did not 

intend to file the § 2241 petition in the Kansas court. The court denied the motion. 

Grigsby seeks a COA to appeal the court’s July 24 order. 

To appeal, Grigsby must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Where, 

as here, a district court has dismissed a filing on procedural grounds, to obtain a COA the 

applicant must show both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

According to Grigsby, he is entitled to a COA because “[n]o Juror of reason could 

dispute that the District of Kansas maliciously and with bias filed Mr. Grigsby’s Petition 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Aplt. Combined Opening Br. at 3. But Grigsby fails to 

address what is required to obtain a COA as announced in Slack. For example, he never 
3

explains why the petition is not second or successive, let alone how jurists of reason 

would find this determination debatable, or whether jurists would debate whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

We deny a COA and dismiss this appeal. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk