UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LAWRENCE CROSS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN BEAR, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 18-6004 

(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-01262-D) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Lawrence Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s decision to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss the matter. 

In 2010, Mr. Cross entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma state court to multiple drug 

trafficking offenses. In 2012, he filed his first § 2254 habeas petition. The district court 

denied the petition and we denied Mr. Cross’s request for a COA. He filed a second 

§ 2254 petition in 2015. The district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because it 

was an unauthorized second or successive petition, and we denied a COA from the 

district court’s dismissal. Mr. Cross filed his third § 2254 petition in the underlying 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

March 13, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

district court case in 2017. Because Mr. Cross had not received authorization from this 

court to file a successive petition, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Cross now seeks a COA to appeal the dismissal. 

To obtain a COA, he must show at a minimum 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). He has not made this showing. 

A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2254 motion unless he first 

obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district court to consider the 

motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such authorization, a district court lacks 

jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2254 petition. See In re 

Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

In his request for a COA, Mr. Cross does not explain how the district court erred 

in dismissing his third § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Cross had 

previously filed two habeas petitions, and he had not received authorization from this 

court to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. Reasonable jurists could not 

debate the district court’s procedural ruling to dismiss Mr. Cross’s unauthorized second 

or successive § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny 

Mr. Cross’s request for a COA. 

We deny as moot Mr. Cross’s request to proceed without prepayment of costs or 

fees. The relevant statute does not permit litigants to avoid payment of filing and 

docketing fees, only prepayment of those fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),(b)(1). 
3 

Though we have ruled on Mr. Cross’s request for a COA, he remains obligated to pay all 

filing and docketing fees.

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk