UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

JERRY LEE MAYS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 14-5054 

(D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00113-TCK-TLW) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Jerry Lee Mays, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

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

 Mr. Mays was found guilty of two counts of shooting with intent to kill 

(Counts I and IV), felonious possession of a firearm (Count II), and assault and 

battery (Count III)—all enhanced because he had two or more prior felony 

convictions. He was sentenced to 40 years for Counts I and IV, 30 years for Count 

II, and 90 days for Count III, with the sentences to be served consecutively. He filed 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 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

July 22, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

a direct appeal challenging his convictions and sentences. The Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeal (OCCA) affirmed his convictions, but it reduced his sentences on 

Counts I and IV to 30 years. 

 Mr. Mays sought post-conviction relief in Oklahoma state court, but his 

petition was denied. His subsequent appeal to the OCCA was unsuccessful. He filed 

a second application for post-conviction relief in the state district court, which was 

also denied, and he pursued a second unsuccessful collateral appeal. Mr. Mays then 

filed his first § 2254 habeas petition in federal court. The district court denied the 

petition, and we denied his request for a COA. Mays v. Dinwiddie, 441 F. App’x 

575, 576, 577 (10th Cir. 2011). 

 In 2011, Mr. Mays filed a second § 2254 petition in federal district court. The 

district court dismissed the petition, and Mr. Mays sought a COA to appeal the 

dismissal. We denied his request for a COA. Mays v. Martin, 512 F. App’x 799, 799 

(10th Cir. 2013). 

 In March of this year, Mr. Mays filed a document that the district court 

construed as a § 2254 petition. The court directed Mr. Mays to file an amended 

petition to cure certain deficiencies. Mr. Mays did as he was directed. The district 

court then dismissed the amended petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was a 

second or successive petition filed without prior authorization from this court. 

Mr. Mays seeks a COA to appeal from that decision. 
- 3 - 

 To obtain a COA, Mr. Mays must show 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). 

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

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

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In the absence of such authorization, a 

district court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2254 

habeas petition. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

 As the district court noted in its dismissal order, Mr. Mays’ amended petition 

is a successive petition that challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and 

sentence, but Mr. Mays did not allege that he obtained the necessary authorization to 

bring a successive § 2254 petition. The court therefore correctly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction to consider the § 2254 petition. 

 In his COA application, Mr. Mays fails to explain how the district court erred 

in dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. Reasonable jurists could not debate 

that the district court was correct to treat Mr. Mays’ new petition as an unauthorized 

second or successive § 2254 habeas petition and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. 

 
- 4 - 

Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk