UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DELMA LAMAR SULLIVAN, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. H. A. RIOS, Warden , Lawton Correctional Facility, Respondent - Appellee. No. 15-6179 (D.C. No. 5:15- CV-00067-M) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , MURPHY , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Delma Lamar Sullivan, an Oklahoma state prisoner, applied for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District C ourt for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court dismissed hi s application. He now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (state pr isoner must obtain a COA to appeal denial of § 2254 application). We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal because his application challenges only the conduct of his state postconviction proceedings. In 1995 Mr. Sullivan was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of first-degree malice murder and was sentenced to life imprisonmen t. Eighteen years later he obtained a favorable affidavit from a codefendant and so ught postconviction relief in state court. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 30, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 The state district court denied relief and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed. Mr. Sullivan’s attorney th en filed his § 2254 applic ation, describing it as “an appeal” from the OCCA decision. Aplt. App. at 5. It alleged that the denial of his postconviction application viol ated his constitutional right to due process because the Oklahoma court erred in applying federal and state law to determine whether his codefendant’s affidavit was newly discovere d evidence. The federal district court dismissed the application on th e grounds that it failed to stat e a cognizable claim and was time-barred. To obtain a COA a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2 ). A petitioner “can make such a showing by demonstrating that the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are deserving of further proceedings, subject to a different resolu tion on appeal, or reasonably debatable among jurists of reason.” Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000). Relief under § 2254 is available if the applicant is “in custody pursuant to th e judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custod y in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We need not consider the timelines of Mr. Sullivan’s application because he has failed to state a claim cognizable in a § 2254 action. He challenges only the constitutionality of a state postconviction pr oceeding, not the constitutionality of his conviction. Under our precedents such a challenge is not proper under § 2254. See Lopez v. Trani , 628 F.3d 1228, 1229 (10t h Cir. 2010) (“the district court did not err in3 dismissing claims that relate d only alleged errors in the post-conviction proceedings”); Sellers v. Ward , 135 F.3d 1333, 1339 (10th Cir. 1 998) (“because the constitutional error he raises focuses only on the State’s post-co nviction remedy and not the judgment which provides the basis for his incarceration, it st ates no cognizable federal habeas claim.”). No reasonable jurist could debate whether Mr. Sullivan’s § 2254 application ought to have been granted.
We DENY Mr. Sullivan’s request for a COA and DISMISS his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge