Court Opinion

ID: 9958464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 15:00:46.689064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:24.168077
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 24-5002     Document: 010111028886         Date Filed: 04/09/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                               April 9, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  VITALY KOLOSHA,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 24-5002
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00481-GKF-JFJ)
  DAVID ROGERS, Warden,                                         (N.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Vitaly Kolosha is an Oklahoma prisoner who has previously and

 unsuccessfully sought relief from his convictions through 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He

 recently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing that he should be released from

 prison because he is factually innocent and he was convicted in violation of the

 Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He argued, for

 example, that the prosecution intentionally suppressed exculpatory, material

 evidence.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 24-5002    Document: 010111028886        Date Filed: 04/09/2024       Page: 2

        The district court construed Mr. Kolosha’s petition as a new § 2254 petition,

 rather than a § 2241 petition. The district court then dismissed the petition for lack

 of jurisdiction because it fell within the definition of “second or successive” and this

 court had not authorized Mr. Kolosha to bring his new claims. See 28 U.S.C.

 § 2244(b)(3)(A).

        Mr. Kolosha filed a timely notice of appeal. The question before us is whether

 to issue a certificate of appealability (COA) so Mr. Kolosha may appeal the district

 court’s decision to construe his § 2241 petition as a § 2254 petition and dismiss it for

 lack of jurisdiction.

        To merit a COA, Mr. Kolosha “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.

 First, the court correctly recognized that Mr. Kolosha’s petition was, in substance, a

 § 2254 petition, not a § 2241 petition. “A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the

 execution of a sentence rather than its validity . . . .” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,

 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Examples of attacks on the “execution” of the sentence include

 claims that the prison will not release prisoner even though he has fully served his

 sentence, see United States v. Scott, 803 F.2d 1095, 1096 (10th Cir. 1986), or that the

                                             2
Appellate Case: 24-5002    Document: 010111028886         Date Filed: 04/09/2024     Page: 3

 prison has unlawfully administered its system of good-time credits, see Dulworth v.

 Evans, 442 F.3d 1265, 1266–67 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2006). Mr. Kolosha’s petition,

 however, “assert[s] [a] federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of

 conviction,” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005). Such a claim counts as a

 § 2254 claim, even if Mr. Kolosha gives it a different label. See id. at 531.

       Second, the district court correctly concluded that this court must authorize

 second or successive § 2254 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Thus, because

 Mr. Kolosha previously brought a § 2254 claim and he had not received this court’s

 permission to bring a new claim attacking the same judgment, the district court

 properly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

       For these reasons, we deny a COA and terminate this matter. We grant

 Mr. Kolosha’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                             3