UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG S. WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. REX PRYOR; DEREK SCHMIDT, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents - Appellees. No. 14-3012 (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-03003-SAC) (D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before LUCERO , TYMKOVICH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.
Craig S. Wilson, a state prisoner proceedi ng pro se, seeks to a ppeal the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition f iled under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismiss this proceeding. To pursue an appeal, W ilson must obtain a COA. See Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 866-67 (10th Ci r. 2000) (holding state pr isoner must obtain COA to appeal final order in ha beas corpus proceeding); cf. United States v. Harper , 545 F.3d

* This order is not binding precedent excep t under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel.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

### April 16, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding fede ral prisoner must obtain COA to appeal district court’s dismissa l of unauthorized second-o r-successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction). Because the district court’s ruling rested on procedural grounds, Wilson 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 re ason would find it debatable wh ether 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 Wilson had previously filed two § 2254 habeas petitions challenging the same state criminal conviction. R. at 33. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Wilson’s current § 2254 ha beas petition because it is second or successive and he had not obtained this court’s authoriza tion to file it. We liberally construe Wilson’s pro se application for a COA. See Hall v.
Scott , 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). Bu t he makes no claim that the district court erred in holding that he filed previous § 2254 hab eas petitions and that his current petition challenges the same state conviction. Rath er, he restates his various claims for relief from that conviction. Wilson complains that his constitutiona l rights have been violated, yet the district court failed to exam ine the grounds of his habeas petition. But having filed a- 3 - first § 2254 petition, Wilson must now seek this court’s authorizati on to file a second or successive petition. And we may au thorize a claim only if satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Because Wilson fails to show that ju rists of reason woul d find it debatable whether the district court’s procedural ru ling was correct, we deny his application for a COA and dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk