Court Opinion

ID: 9927976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:01:23.200462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:38.859753
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3228     Document: 010110992041         Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            January 30, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                                Jane K. Castro
                                                                               Chief Deputy Clerk
  WALTER PAYTON,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-3228
                                                      (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-03237-JWL)
  STATE OF KANSAS,                                               (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, KELLY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Walter Payton, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to

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

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

 COA and dismiss this matter.

        In 1998, Mr. Payton was convicted of three counts of rape in Kansas state court.

 He was sentenced to 712 months in prison. In 2003, he filed his first § 2254 habeas

 application, which the district court dismissed as time-barred. After that he filed two

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-3228        Document: 010110992041        Date Filed: 01/30/2024        Page: 2

 additional § 2254 applications, which the district court dismissed as unauthorized second

 or successive applications.

        In 2023, Mr. Payton filed his fourth § 2254 habeas application. Because he did

 not receive authorization from this court to file a successive § 2254 habeas application,

 the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Payton now seeks a COA to

 appeal from the district court’s dismissal order.

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

 procedural grounds, Mr. Payton 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 state prisoner, like Mr. Payton, may not file a second or successive § 2254

 habeas application unless he 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).

        Mr. Payton does not dispute that he previously filed a § 2254 application

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

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

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

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-3228     Document: 010110992041          Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 3

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

 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011). Under AEDPA, Mr. Payton must receive authorization

 from this court before he may proceed with his successive § 2254 habeas application,

 see § 2244(b)(3)(A), but he does not contend that this court granted him the requisite

 authorization. In his COA application, he does not address the reasoning in the district

 court’s dismissal order, but instead raises arguments challenging the validity of his

 state-court convictions.

        Because Mr. Payton did not receive the requisite circuit-court authorization before

 filing his fourth § 2254 habeas application, he has failed to show that jurists of reason

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

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

 matter.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                               3