Court Opinion

ID: 9915543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 18:00:41.707174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:32.496257
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6142     Document: 010110978947          Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              January 5, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  CLAYTON ORVILLE KING,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 23-6142
                                                         (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00262-J)
  WARDEN DAVID ROGERS,                                          (W.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Clayton Orville King, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability

 (COA) to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 petition for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. We

 deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

        I. Background

        Mr. King was convicted of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court in 2003.

 He filed his first § 2254 habeas petition in 2008, which the district court dismissed as

 untimely.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-6142      Document: 010110978947          Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 2

        In 2023, Mr. King filed a second § 2254 habeas petition. Because he did not

 receive authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas

 petition, a magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed for lack of

 jurisdiction. Mr. King objected, but the district court adopted the report and

 recommendation and dismissed his habeas petition.

        Mr. King 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, Mr. King 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. King, may not file a second or successive § 2254 habeas

 petition 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

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

        In his COA application, Mr. King asserts that “this federal habeas corpus packet is

 the first one I ever sent in.” COA Appl. at 1. And liberally construing his pro se filing,

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-6142      Document: 010110978947          Date Filed: 01/05/2024       Page: 3

 he argues that he filed an “‘amended petition’ for writ of mandamus” that was improperly

 treated as a habeas petition. Id.

        Mr. King made a similar argument in his objection to the magistrate judge’s report

 and recommendation, where he argued his earlier case was improperly construed as a

 habeas petition and insisted that “the instant action is certifiably the first one.” R. at 63

 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). But the district court rejected this

 argument, agreeing with the magistrate judge that Mr. King had already filed one § 2254

 habeas petition. As the district court explained, in the earlier case Mr. King “used a

 § 2254 form when he filed his amended petition.”1 Id. And the court further noted that a

 review of the earlier case “[found] no objection from Petitioner regarding its

 construction.” Id. Mr. King does not challenge the district court’s findings or explain

 how the district court erred in reaching the conclusion that he had previously filed a

 habeas petition. In the remainder of his COA application, he reargues the merits of his

 underlying habeas petition.

        The district court dismissed Mr. King’s first habeas petition as time-barred, which

 “was a decision on the merits, 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

        1
          In his 2008 action, Mr. King initially submitted a non-form pleading challenging
 the validity of his state conviction, asserting his innocence, and requesting release from
 custody. The district court construed the pleading as a § 2254 habeas petition but
 directed Mr. King to file an amended habeas petition using the court-approved form.
 Mr. King complied with the order without lodging any objections.
                                                3
Appellate Case: 23-6142     Document: 010110978947          Date Filed: 01/05/2024        Page: 4

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

 before he may proceed with a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. See

 § 2244(b)(3)(A).

        Because Mr. King previously filed a § 2254 habeas petition and did not receive the

 requisite circuit-court authorization before filing his second § 2254 habeas petition, he

 has failed to show that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of the district

 court’s procedural ruling dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we

 deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                               4