Evans v. Patton , 565 F. App'x 716 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 1, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY A. EVANS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 13-7065
v.
(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00139-RAW-KEW)
(E.D. Okla.)
ROBERT PATTON, *
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY **
Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Jeffrey Evans, proceeding pro se 1 and in forma
pauperis, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district
court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
*
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This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and
Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
1
Because Mr. Evans appears pro se, we construe his filings liberally.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Garza v. Davis, 596
F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010).
§ 2254. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny Mr. Evans’s
application for a COA and dismiss this matter.
A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of the merits of
a § 2254 appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830,
833 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, --- U.S. ----, 132 S. Ct. 641,
649 (2012) (citing the “clear jurisdictional language . . . in § 2253(c)(1)” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). We will not issue a COA unless “the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Harris v.
Dinwiddie, 642 F.3d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2))
(internal quotation marks omitted). An applicant “satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude that the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Dulworth
v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Following a jury trial, Mr. Evans was convicted in the district court of Love
County, Oklahoma for the May 2006 murder of Calvin Porter. The Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed his conviction and sentence and
subsequently affirmed the state district court’s denial of postconviction relief.
Mr. Evans is presently serving a life sentence at Oklahoma’s Lawton Correctional
Facility.
2
On April 20, 2010, Mr. Evans filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, pursuant to § 2254, attacking the validity of his
conviction and asserting twenty-one grounds for relief. The matter was referred
to a magistrate judge for a proposed dispositional recommendation, see 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); thereafter, in a detailed report and recommendation, the
magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny habeas relief and
dismiss the action “in all respects.” R., Vol. II, at 455 (Report &
Recommendation, filed Aug. 1, 2013). On September 24, 2013 (over Mr. Evans’s
numerous objections), the district court issued a one-page order affirming and
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissing his
petition. Id. at 468 (Order, filed Sept. 24, 2013). The court entered final
judgment the same day, and this proceeding followed.
Pursuant to the analytic framework that the Supreme Court has established,
most notably in Miller-El, we have thoroughly reviewed Mr. Evans’s combined
opening brief and application for a COA and the record, including the district
court’s dismissal order that adopted in full the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Based upon this review, we conclude that Mr. Evans is not
entitled to a COA on any of his claims because reasonable jurists would not
debate the correctness of the district court’s decision. We likewise conclude that
3
Mr. Evans has not demonstrated that any of the issues he has presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further .
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we DENY Mr. Evans’s request for
a COA. This matter is hereby DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
4