UNITED STATES COURT 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 proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s dismissal of his habeas petition filed 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, Wilson must obtain a COA. See Montez v. McKinna, 

208 F.3d 862, 866-67 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding state prisoner must obtain COA to 

appeal final order in habeas corpus proceeding); cf. United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 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

April 16, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding federal prisoner must obtain COA to appeal 

district court’s dismissal of unauthorized second-or-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 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 district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or 

successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.” 

In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). The district 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 habeas petition because it is second or 

successive and he had not obtained this court’s authorization 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). But he makes no claim that the district 

court erred in holding that he filed previous § 2254 habeas petitions and that his 

current petition challenges the same state conviction. Rather, he restates his various 

claims for relief from that conviction. 

 Wilson complains that his constitutional rights have been violated, yet the 

district court failed to examine the grounds of his habeas petition. But having filed a 
- 3 - 

first § 2254 petition, Wilson must now seek this court’s authorization to file a second 

or successive petition. And we may authorize a claim only if satisfies the 

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

 Because Wilson fails to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct, we deny his application for 

a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk