Court Opinion

ID: 9377333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 17:00:49.78684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.959161
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1004     Document: 010110822553         Date Filed: 03/07/2023       Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              March 7, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  KEVIN L. MCKINNEY,

        Petitioner - Appellant,
                                                               No. 23-1004
  v.                                               (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-02351-LTB-GPG)
                                                                (D. Colo.)
  MARK FAIRBAIRN,

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Kevin L. McKinney, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of

 appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

 application as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 application.1 We deny a COA.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
        1
          Mr. McKinney sought an extension of time from the district court to file his
 notice of appeal. The district court granted the motion. Mr. McKinney’s notice of appeal
 filed January 3, 2023, is therefore timely.
Appellate Case: 23-1004      Document: 010110822553          Date Filed: 03/07/2023      Page: 2

        I. Background

        Following a jury trial, Mr. McKinney was convicted of multiple counts stemming

 from an armed robbery of a grocery store in Arapahoe County, Colorado. He was

 sentenced to 216 years in prison. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment

 and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Mr. McKinney then filed a § 2254

 habeas corpus application, alleging a due process violation because he was convicted on

 evidence seized as the result of an illegal vehicle stop. The district court denied relief,

 and we denied a COA.

        He subsequently filed an application purportedly seeking relief under § 2241. He

 brought one claim for “ILLEGAL CUSTODY,” R. at 81, and argued the trial court

 permitted evidence seized as a result of an illegal stop to be admitted as evidence, which

 violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The magistrate judge

 concluded that Mr. McKinney was challenging the validity of his state-court convictions,

 not the execution of his sentence. The magistrate judge therefore concluded that

 Mr. McKinney’s claim arose under § 2254. Because Mr. McKinney had already

 challenged his convictions under § 2254 and had not obtained authorization to file a

 second or successive § 2254 habeas application, the magistrate judge recommended

 dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

        Mr. McKinney filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

 recommendation. The district court overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate

 judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissed the application. Mr. McKinney now

 seeks a COA to appeal from that dismissal.

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-1004      Document: 010110822553          Date Filed: 03/07/2023      Page: 3

        II. Discussion

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

 procedural grounds, the movant 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. See id. at 485.

        A prisoner 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

 petition. 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).

        In his COA application, Mr. McKinney contends that the state trial court

 suppressed its ruling that was favorable to the defense and the jury was not properly

 instructed, which led to a fundamentally unfair trial and violated his due process rights.

 But he fails to adequately address the district court’s reasoning for construing his § 2241

 application as a successive § 2254 application.

        We have explained that “[s]ection § 2241 is a vehicle for challenging pretrial

 detention, . . . or for attacking the execution of a sentence” and “[a] § 2254 petition, on

 the other hand, is the proper avenue for attacking the validity of a conviction and

 sentence.” Yellowbear v. Wyo. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 921, 924 (10th Cir. 2008).

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-1004       Document: 010110822553        Date Filed: 03/07/2023      Page: 4

 Mr. McKinney’s argument that his due process rights were violated due to alleged errors

 during trial is an attack on the validity of his convictions and sentences. Such a claim is

 properly brought in a § 2254 habeas application. He has therefore failed to show that

 reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s procedural ruling to treat his § 2241

 application as an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 habeas application and

 dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

        For the foregoing reasons, we deny a COA. We grant Mr. McKinney’s motion for

 leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                               4