Brantley v. Patton ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TONY BRANTLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 14-6031
(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-01352-F)
ROBERT PATTON, Director,* (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY**
Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Tony E. Brantley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss the
matter.
In 2005, Mr. Brantley was convicted in Oklahoma state court of manufacturing
a dangerous substance (methamphetamine), and two counts of possession of a
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Robert Patton, the
current Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, is automatically
substituted as Respondent in this case.
**
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the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.
controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine and marijuana). He was
sentenced to an aggregate eighty-six year term of imprisonment. The Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. Mr. Brantley
sought post-conviction relief in state court, but it was denied.
In 2008, Mr. Brantley filed his first § 2254 habeas petition, asserting ten
grounds for relief. The district court denied the petition, and we denied a COA.
Brantley v. Sirmons, 342 F. App’x 384, 385 (10th Cir. 2009). In December 2013,
Mr. Brantley filed a second § 2254 habeas petition. The district court determined
that this petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition and dismissed it
for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Brantley now seeks a COA to appeal that dismissal.
To obtain a COA, Mr. Brantley must show 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).
A prisoner 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In the absence of such
authorization, a district court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or
successive § 2254 habeas petition. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251
(10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
-2-
Mr. Brantley’s first § 2254 habeas petition brought claims attacking the same
conviction that he now seeks to challenge in his second § 2254 habeas petition. We
have explained that after a decision on the merits of a first habeas petition, “any later
habeas petition challenging the same conviction is second or successive and is
subject to the AEDPA requirements.” In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir.
2011) (per curiam). The district court therefore properly characterized
Mr. Brantley’s new petition as a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition.
In his COA brief, Mr. Brantley does not argue that the district court erred in
making the determination that his new petition was an unauthorized second or
successive § 2254 habeas petition. Rather, he argues the merits of his underlying
habeas claims and asserts that his case was erroneously dismissed and should have
been transferred to this court for authorization instead. But the district court properly
considered whether it would be in the interest of justice to transfer Mr. Brantley’s
successive petition to this court and concluded that it would not be, noting that this
court had already rejected the ineffective assistance, insufficiency of the evidence,
and “newly discovered evidence” arguments in Mr. Brantley’s first habeas action.
Reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct to treat
Mr. Brantley’s new petition as an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 habeas
-3-
petition and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny a COA and
dismiss this matter.1
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
1
At the end of his brief, Mr. Brantley also makes a one-sentence request for
permission to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. The proper procedure for
requesting such relief is to file a motion for authorization that makes a prima facie
showing that he has a new claim that was not presented in a prior habeas petition and
meets the stringent requirements for authorization in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3).
-4-