Pierce v. Waddington ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS       Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         May 27, 2015
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    CHRISTOPHER PIERCE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                        No. 15-3056
    (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-03029-SAC-DJW)
    DOUGLAS WADDINGTON; KANSAS                                  (D. Kan.)
    ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, KELLY and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
    Christopher Pierce, a Kansas prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
    appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    habeas corpus application for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253(a), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
    In July 1993, Mr. Pierce pleaded guilty in Wyandotte County to kidnapping
    and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to consecutive fifteen-year terms.
    See Pierce v. Nelson, D.C. No. 5:00-cv-03240-DES, Doc. 9, at 2, 5 (D. Kan. Jan. 31,
    *
    This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the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.
    2001). In 2000, he filed two habeas petitions under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     that were
    consolidated for decision and denied on the merits. See Nelson, D.C.
    No. 5:00-cv-03240-DES, Doc. 9, at 3-5. He sought to appeal, but we denied his
    application for a COA and dismissed his appeal. See Pierce v. Nelson, slip op.
    (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2001) (No. 01-3032) (unpublished).
    In his most recent petition, Mr. Pierce asserted in a single paragraph that he
    had presented documentation in Pierce v. Waddington, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-03002-
    SAC-DJW showing that he was actually innocent and should be released from
    custody. D.C. Doc. 1, at 14-15. The district court determined that the petition was
    an unauthorized successive petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. 
    Id.
    Doc. 7, at 1. The court did not address COA in its dismissal order, but a COA is a
    jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of the district court’s decision under
    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 335-36 (2003). We will issue a COA “only if
    [Mr. Pierce] has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2). Because the district court denied his habeas application on
    procedural grounds, we will grant a COA only if the district court’s procedural ruling
    is reasonably debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000).
    We conclude that it is not debatable. Because the habeas applications
    Mr. Pierce filed in 2000 were adjudicated on their merits, the recent application he
    presented to the district court claiming actual innocence was second or successive,
    and he was required to obtain this court’s authorization to file it. See 28 U.S.C.
    -2-
    § 2244(b)(3)(A). But he did not do so. In his current request for a COA, Mr. Pierce
    does not provide a basis for granting a COA. And contrary to his suggestion, his
    claim that he was actually innocent is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity
    of his conviction falling under § 2254, not a challenge to the execution of his
    sentence falling under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (which does not require a COA for appeal or
    this court’s authorization for the district court to proceed). See Dulworth v. Evans,
    
    442 F.3d 1265
    , 1268 (10th Cir. 2006).
    “A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or
    successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.”
    In re Cline, 
    531 F.3d 1249
    , 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). When presented with
    an unauthorized second or successive application, the district court has the option to
    transfer the application to this court if a transfer is in the interest of justice or dismiss
    it for lack of jurisdiction. See 
    id. at 1252
    . The district court decided to dismiss.
    Nothing before us indicates that any reasonable jurist would disagree with that
    decision.
    Accordingly, we deny the application for a COA and dismiss this
    appeal.
    Entered for the Court
    ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-3056

Filed Date: 5/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021