Court Opinion

ID: 9368668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 17:00:44.874037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.619183
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6180     Document: 010110808502         Date Filed: 02/06/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 6, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  CARL DEAN WYATT, JR.,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 22-6180
                                                        (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-00740-R)
  SCOTT CROW,                                                  (W.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
                    _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Carl Dean Wyatt, Jr., is an Oklahoma prisoner serving a life sentence for a

 murder committed in 1997. He has filed multiple unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2254

 petitions challenging his conviction.

        In August 2022, Wyatt filed a new § 2254 petition alleging new DNA

 evidence, and new evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. In October 2022, the

 district court dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction because it fell within the

 definition of “second or successive” and this court had not authorized Wyatt to bring

 his new claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Wyatt then filed a notice of appeal,

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the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.
Appellate Case: 22-6180     Document: 010110808502        Date Filed: 02/06/2023      Page: 2

 resulting in this proceeding (No. 22-6180). He also filed a motion for authorization

 to file his new § 2254 petition, creating another proceeding (No. 22-6201).

        In December 2022, we denied Wyatt’s motion for authorization, thus

 terminating No. 22-6201. But this proceeding remains, and the question before us is

 whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA) so Wyatt may challenge the

 district court’s decision to dismiss his § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

        To merit a COA, Wyatt “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find

 the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). And he must make an extra showing

 in this circumstance because the district court resolved his motion on a procedural

 basis, namely, lack of jurisdiction. So he must also show that “jurists of reason

 would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

 ruling.” Id.

        Jurists of reason would not find the district court’s procedural ruling

 debatable. This was not a situation where a prisoner filed a motion invoking some

 authority other than § 2254, thus requiring the district court to discern whether the

 motion was an attempt to avoid the statutory restrictions on second or successive

 § 2254 petitions. Wyatt explicitly filed a new § 2254 petition, yet without

 authorization. “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).

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-6180    Document: 010110808502         Date Filed: 02/06/2023    Page: 3

       Wyatt does not argue otherwise. His application for a COA instead argues the

 substance of the claims he hopes to bring. Effectively, it is another motion for

 authorization, but on the same grounds we considered in No. 22-6201. It does not

 address the district court’s procedural decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

       For these reasons, we deny a COA. We grant Wyatt’s motion to proceed

 without prepayment of costs or fees.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                             3