Court Opinion

ID: 9927975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:01:21.859141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:38.732101
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3166     Document: 010110992032          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
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  ROBERT LEE VERGE,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 23-3166
                                                       (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-03200-JWL)
  TOMMY WILLIAMS,                                                 (D. Kan.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        Robert Lee Verge is confined in a Kansas prison for crimes committed in 1997.

 In 2006 he challenged his convictions in an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 application. Earlier this year, he filed another § 2254 application. The district court

 concluded that the new application was an unauthorized second or successive one, and so

 it dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Verge wishes to appeal the

 dismissal. But he can appeal only if we grant him a certificate of appealability. See

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We deny his request for one.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-3166      Document: 010110992032         Date Filed: 01/30/2024      Page: 2

        We may grant a certificate of appealability only if “jurists of reason would find it

 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). A district court lacks jurisdiction over the merits of

 a second or successive § 2254 application unless the appropriate court of appeals has

 authorized the applicant to file it. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008).

 Mr. Verge does not claim to have received authorization to file the underlying § 2254

 application, so the question becomes whether it was indeed second or successive.

        Mr. Verge argues (under a liberal reading of his papers)1 that the application was

 not second or successive because it is the first to challenge a new judgment. He relies on

 Magwood v. Patterson, a decision holding that a § 2254 application may not be

 considered second or successive if it is the first to challenge a particular judgment, even if

 it comes after another application challenging an earlier judgment in the same case, see

 561 U.S. 320, 331–33 (2010). And he identifies a 2022 postconviction decision by the

 Kansas Supreme Court as the judgment challenged in the underlying application.

        This argument misunderstands what § 2254 and Magwood mean when they refer

 to a judgment. They mean the judgment causing the habeas applicant’s confinement, not

 merely any decision in the applicant’s case. See § 2254(a), (b)(1); Magwood, 561 U.S.

 at 332. The judgment causing Mr. Verge’s confinement is the Kansas district court’s

 judgment from 2002. He has already challenged the 2002 judgment in a § 2254

 application. Later state-court decisions leaving the 2002 judgment undisturbed—such as

        1
        Mr. Verge represents himself, so we construe his filings liberally. See Hall v.
 Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-3166      Document: 010110992032         Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 3

 the 2022 Kansas Supreme Court decision—do not amount to new judgments under

 Magwood that would allow Mr. Verge to file another § 2254 application without prior

 authorization from this court.

        Mr. Verge’s underlying § 2254 application was both unauthorized and second or

 successive. For that reason, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the

 application. And so reasonable jurists could not debate the decision to dismiss it. We

 therefore deny Mr. Verge’s application for a certificate of appealability. We grant his

 motion to proceed without prepaying costs or fees. We dismiss this matter.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                               3