Court Opinion

ID: 9371089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:01:36.731153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.788883
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6160     Document: 010110813160         Date Filed: 02/15/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 15, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  LISA ADAMS,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 22-6160
                                                        (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-01142-C)
  ABOUTANAA EL HABTI, Warden,                                  (W.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Lisa Adams, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to

 appeal from the district court’s order dismissing her second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 application for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive application. We deny a

 COA and dismiss this matter.

        I. Background

        In 1990, Ms. Adams pled guilty to Murder in the First Degree. She was sentenced

 to life in prison without parole. In 2000, she filed a § 2254 habeas application

 challenging her conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed it as time-barred.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 22-6160      Document: 010110813160          Date Filed: 02/15/2023      Page: 2

        In 2021, Ms. Adams filed a second § 2254 habeas application. She asserted one

 claim—that the state lacked jurisdiction to charge, try, and convict her because the

 federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indians

 in Indian Country, relying on McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). Because she

 did not receive authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas

 application, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Adams now seeks

 a COA to appeal from the district court’s dismissal order.

        II. Discussion

        To obtain a COA where, as here, a district court has dismissed a filing on

 procedural grounds, Ms. Adams 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). We need not

 address the constitutional question if we conclude that reasonable jurists would not

 debate the district court’s resolution of the procedural one. Id. at 485.

        A prisoner, like Ms. Adams, may not file a second or successive § 2254 habeas

 application unless she first obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district

 court to consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such authorization, a

 district court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2254

 habeas application. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008).

        Ms. Adams does not dispute that she previously filed a § 2254 application

 challenging the same conviction. The district court’s dismissal of that application as

                                               2
Appellate Case: 22-6160       Document: 010110813160        Date Filed: 02/15/2023     Page: 3

 time-barred constitutes a merits decision, and “any later habeas petition challenging the

 same conviction is second or successive and is subject to the [Antiterrorism and Effective

 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)] requirements.” In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275

 (10th Cir. 2011). Under AEDPA, Ms. Adams must receive authorization from this court

 before she may proceed with her second or successive § 2254 habeas application, see

 § 2244(b)(3)(A), but she does not contend that this court granted her the requisite

 authorization.

          Instead, Ms. Adams appears to argue that because she is raising a jurisdictional

 claim, she does not need to comply with the requirements for filing a second or

 successive § 2254 application. But that is not correct. She does not cite a single case

 holding that jurisdictional challenges to convictions are exempt from the categorical

 Congressional mandate that claims raised in second or successive § 2254 habeas

 applications must be authorized by a circuit court before they may proceed in district

 court.

          In the § 2255 context, we considered a similar argument from a federal prisoner

 seeking to bring successive § 2255 claims without authorization by “assert[ing] that a

 jurisdictional claim can be raised at any time.” Cline, 531 F.3d at 1253. But we rejected

 that argument and concluded that the district court “properly treated these post-conviction

 claims [challenging the court’s jurisdiction] as unauthorized second or successive § 2255

 claims.” Id.; cf. Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 592 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that “lack

 of jurisdiction is not one of the two authorized grounds upon which a successive § 2254

 motion may be filed”).

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-6160     Document: 010110813160         Date Filed: 02/15/2023        Page: 4

        Because Ms. Adams did not receive the requisite circuit-court authorization before

 filing her second § 2254 habeas application, she has failed to show that jurists of reason

 would debate the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling dismissing her

 application for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this

 matter. We grant Ms. Adams’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without

 prepayment of costs or fees.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                              4