Davis v. Davis ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 14, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 18-3174
(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-03188-SAC)
JEFFERSON DAVIS, (D. Kan.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Before the court is Anthony Leroy Davis’s application for a certificate of
appealability (COA). Davis is serving a life sentence in Kansas state prison for first-
degree murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated robbery. The district court denied
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and his initial application for a COA. Davis now
appeals these rulings, pro se. Before Davis’s appeal may proceed, however, he must
obtain a COA from this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We will issue a COA only
where “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the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.
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000).
In his appellate brief, Davis raises a litany of issues—including that the district
court judge should have recused himself and that the state of Kansas violated his First
Amendment rights because of his race. Unfortunately, he did not raise any of these
issues in his petition, and we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a COA
application. See United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012); Smith v.
Farris, 662 F. App’x 641 (10th Cir. 2016). The only question presented in his petition
is a nonsensical one, which has nothing to do with his conviction or incarceration:
Whether or not the socialist speech of hogwash by the Reverend King
Martin Luther, Jr., “I had a dream” ideations coup’etat democracy
postbellum cartel nightmare fraught with devout disfranchised
unconstitutional confederacy democratic parties charged with carte-
blanche abolitionism overruling republican party capitaist federalisted
constitutional government, reciprocal?
ROA at 31 (misspellings in original). We, of course, construe pro se pleadings
liberally. But Davis’s petition, in which he names “Jefferson Davis, President of the
Confederacy” as a defendant and provides an interesting history of the Civil War, is
indecipherable and in no way relates to his incarceration. Id. at 17–40. Because
reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment of Davis’s
constitutional claims debatable or wrong, we must deny his application for a COA.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Davis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
motion for a certificate of appealability are DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
3