UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RAMON ORTIZ-SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. MR. POLK, Warden, S.C.F.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents-Appellees. No. 13-1153 (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00282-LTB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, KELLY and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Ramon Ortiz-Salgado, a st ate prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the district court’s dism issal of his habeas petition file d under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismiss this proceeding. In order to pursue an appeal, Or tiz-Salgado must obtain a COA. See Montez v.
McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 866-67 (10t h Cir. 2000) (holding st ate prisoner must obtain COA to appeal final order in habeas corpus proceeding); cf. United States v. Harper ,

* This order is not binding precedent excep t under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel.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 

### June 14, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - 545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding federal pr isoner must obtain COA to appeal district court’s di smissal of unauthorized seco nd-or-successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction). Because the district court’s ruling rested on procedural grounds, Ortiz-Salgado must show both “that juri sts 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). “A district court does not have jurisdic tion to address the me rits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.” In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10t h Cir. 2008). The dist rict court found that Ortiz-Salgado had previously filed a § 225 4 habeas petition challenging the same state criminal conviction. See Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ortiz-Salgado v. Watkins , No. 1:01-CV-00012-WYD (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2002). After the district court denied the petition, this court denied a COA. See Ortiz-Salgado v. Watkins , No. 02-1044, slip. op. (10th Cir. June 25, 2002). Therefore, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ortiz-Salgado’s current § 2254 habeas petition because it is second or successive and he had not obtained this court’s authorization to file it. We liberally construe Ortiz-Salgado’ s pro se application for a COA. See Hall
v. Scott , 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). But he makes no claim that the- 3 - district court erred in holdi ng that he previously file d a § 2254 habeas petition and that his current petition challe nges the same state conviction. Rather, he restates his various claims for relief from that conviction. Because Ortiz-Salgado fails to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court’s pr ocedural ruling was correct, we deny his application for a COA and dismiss the app eal. We also deny his motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees beca use he has not shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in suppor t of the issues raised. Therefore, any unpaid amounts of the filing and docketing fees are now due. Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk