Court Opinion

ID: 9914530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 16:00:50.156004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:23.428314
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6135        Document: 010110976731      Date Filed: 01/02/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                                FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           January 2, 2024
                            _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  ANTHONY SHRONE PERSON,

           Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-6135
                                                       (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00695-HE)
  RAMMA M. JONES; ALANNAH M.                                   (W.D. Okla.)
  ATKINS; DANIEL PATTON; TYLER
  CRAIG BICKERTON,

           Respondents - Appellees.
                          _________________________________

                ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                       _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, EBEL and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Anthony Shrone Person, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability

 (COA) to appeal from the district court’s order construing his motion to commence

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

 petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss this

 matter.

        Mr. Person was convicted on eighteen counts of sexual assault in Washington state

 court. He filed a § 2254 habeas petition in federal district court in Washington state, but

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-6135     Document: 010110976731          Date Filed: 01/02/2024      Page: 2

 that court dismissed the petition because Mr. Person had not exhausted his state court

 remedies. After the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, he filed

 a second § 2254 habeas petition in federal district court in Washington state. Shortly

 thereafter he filed a pleading in the Western District of Oklahoma titled “Motion [to]

 Commence Criminal Proceedings Pursuant [to] Fed Rule 3 and 4 Criminal Procedure

 § 603.02(1)(2)(a)(b)(c)(d) Designation of Records.” R. at 5 (internal quotation marks

 omitted).

        In his motion, Mr. Person challenged the validity of his convictions, arguing they

 were based on false complaints filed against him by his ex-wife and three of his children

 that the State of Washington knew were false. He also asserted that his ex-wife and

 children, along with the police detective and deputy prosecutor, should be criminally

 investigated and prosecuted for their actions.

        Based on the nature of Mr. Person’s contentions in his motion, a magistrate judge

 construed the pleading as a § 2254 habeas petition, and recommended it be dismissed for

 lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The magistrate

 judge also noted that, in addition to the court lacking jurisdiction over the successive

 habeas petition, the court was not authorized to grant the other relief Mr. Person

 requested—to commence criminal charges against the defendants. Mr. Person objected

 to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, arguing that his criminal complaint

 against the defendants should not be construed as a habeas petition.

        The district court considered the objection, but explained that Mr. Person, as a

 private citizen, lacked standing to pursue a criminal complaint. The court adopted the

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-6135      Document: 010110976731         Date Filed: 01/02/2024      Page: 3

 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and concluded that whether Mr. Person’s

 filing is construed as a motion to commence a criminal proceeding or as a habeas

 petition, it would be dismissed. Mr. Person now seeks a COA to appeal from the district

 court’s order.

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

 procedural grounds, Mr. Person 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. Person, may not file a second or successive § 2254

 habeas petition unless he first obtains an order from the appropriate court of appeals

 authorizing the district court to consider the petition.1 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 petition. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251

 (10th Cir. 2008).

        1
          The magistrate judge noted that the appropriate court of appeals would be the
 Ninth Circuit because Mr. Person is incarcerated in Washington state and was convicted
 there. But the magistrate judge further explained it would not be in the interest of justice
 to transfer Mr. Person’s petition to the Ninth Circuit because he already has a similar
 habeas petition pending in the Western District of Washington.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-6135      Document: 010110976731          Date Filed: 01/02/2024      Page: 4

        Mr. Person contends in his COA application that he filed a criminal complaint, not

 a habeas petition. But in his filing in district court he asserted that his conviction violates

 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was obtained through

 the use of false evidence. And he continues to assert in this court that he has been

 “wrongfully and unlawfully incarcerated by Washington state actors that have violated

 the evidence rules and ‘Brady’ precedent.”2 COA Appl. at 7. Mr. Person’s assertions in

 district court and in this court track the language in § 2254, which provides that “a person

 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” may seek a writ of habeas corpus

 “on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C.

 § 2254(a). Mr. Person has therefore failed to show that jurists of reason would debate the

 correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling construing his filing as an

 unauthorized second or successive § 2254 habeas petition and dismissing it for lack of

 jurisdiction.

        Alternatively, even if Mr. Person’s filing is treated as a motion to commence

 criminal proceedings, the district court explained that a private citizen lacks standing to

 pursue a criminal complaint and therefore the motion would be dismissed. Without citing

 any authority, Mr. Person contends that “[c]riminal complaints can be brought by private

 citizens.” COA Appl. at 8. But the Supreme Court has held that a private citizen may

        2
          In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held “that the
 suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates
 [the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] where the evidence is material
 either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the
 prosecution.”
                                                4
Appellate Case: 23-6135      Document: 010110976731          Date Filed: 01/02/2024   Page: 5

 not compel the State to enforce a law against another person because “a private citizen

 lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”

 Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

 therefore also affirm the district court’s alternative holding.

        For the foregoing reasons, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant

 Mr. Person’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees.

 We deny all other pending motions.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                                5