Mays v. Rankins ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
JERRY LEE MAYS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 22-5047
(D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00225-GKF-JFJ)
CHRIS RANKINS, (N.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Jerry Lee Mays, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se,1 seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s determination that his most recent
28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application
that it lacked jurisdiction to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Mr. Mays has filed
an application for a COA, and what appears to be a supplement to his application.
Having reviewed both pleadings, we deny a COA and dismiss this appeal.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
1
Because Mr. Mays appears pro se, we liberally construe his filings. Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we do not make
arguments for pro se litigants or otherwise advocate on their behalf. Id.Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 2
To obtain a COA, Mr. Mays 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).
Mr. Mays previously sought relief under § 2254 and was unsuccessful. See Mays
v. Dinwiddie, 441 F. App’x 575, 576, 577 (10th Cir. 2011). He has not obtained this
court’s authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive
application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move
in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application.”). No reasonable jurist would find it debatable that the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling that his most recent application was an unauthorized
second or successive application, and the court properly dismissed it. See In re Cline,
531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008).
We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We note that Mr. Mays filed a motion
for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees, then attempted to
file a second such motion that is largely identical to the first. We grant his first motion,
and deny the second as moot.
Entered for the Court
CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk
2