* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be c ited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate reco rd, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

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

### February 22, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS WOODBERRY,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-3289

v. (D. of Kan.) LOUIS E. BRUCE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, Respondent-Appellee. (D.C. No. 00-CV-3394-SAC)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before EBEL , HARTZ , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner-Appellant Thomas Woodberry, a state pris oner appearing pro se, is a frequent filer in both the state and federal c ourts. This appeal stems from the district court’s denial of Woodberry’s habeas corpu s petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for which we subsequently denied a c ertificate of appealability-2-

(COA). The Supreme Court dismissed his petition fo r a writ of certiorari. Woodberry v. Bruce , No. 04-3456, 04-3457, 2005 WL 469608 (10th Cir. M arch 1, 2005) (unpublished), cert. dismissed, 125 S. Ct. 2552 (2005). After these unsuccessful appeals, Woodberry filed i n the district court a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b), claiming the court erred in previously dismissing his case on pr ocedural grounds. The district court denied the motion, holding that no legal basi s existed to grant him additional review of a rejected claim already uphel d on appeal by this court and denied certiorari review by the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court recently held, a Rule 60(b) mo tion is appropriate when it alleges a “defect in the integrity of the f ederal habeas proceedings” under § 2254. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2648 (2005). Liberally construi ng Woodberry’s claim to assert such a defect, Woodberry needs a COA to proceed. Id. at 2650 n.7. A COA may issue only if “jurists of r eason 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). Woodberry’s claims, since they already hav e been rejected on appeal by this court and denied certiorari by the Supreme Cou rt, do not make this showing.-3-

Bruce , 2005 WL 469608, at *1. We also note that Woodber ry’s new claims, as stated by the district court, are not only meritles s, but legally frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Woodberry’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny COA, and dismiss the appeal. We further cauti on Mr. Woodberry that he must seek leave of the district court before submit ting any additional pleadings in this action. Entered for the court Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge