Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LAWRENCE CROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 18-6004 (D.C. No. 5:17-CV-01262-D) WARDEN BEAR, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _ Before LUCERO, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Lawrence Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LAWRENCE CROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 18-6004 (D.C. No. 5:17-CV-01262-D) WARDEN BEAR, (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _ Before LUCERO, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Lawrence Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the d..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LAWRENCE CROSS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 18-6004
(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-01262-D)
WARDEN BEAR, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Lawrence Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s decision to dismiss his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss the matter.
In 2010, Mr. Cross entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma state court to multiple drug
trafficking offenses. In 2012, he filed his first § 2254 habeas petition. The district court
denied the petition and we denied Mr. Cross’s request for a COA. He filed a second
§ 2254 petition in 2015. The district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because it
was an unauthorized second or successive petition, and we denied a COA from the
district court’s dismissal. Mr. Cross filed his third § 2254 petition in the underlying
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
district court case in 2017. Because Mr. Cross had not received authorization from this
court to file a successive petition, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Cross now seeks a COA to appeal the dismissal.
To obtain a COA, he must show at a minimum 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). He has not made this showing.
A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2254 motion unless he first
obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district court to consider the
motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such authorization, a district court lacks
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2254 petition. See In re
Cline,
531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
In his request for a COA, Mr. Cross does not explain how the district court erred
in dismissing his third § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Cross had
previously filed two habeas petitions, and he had not received authorization from this
court to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. Reasonable jurists could not
debate the district court’s procedural ruling to dismiss Mr. Cross’s unauthorized second
or successive § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny
Mr. Cross’s request for a COA.
We deny as moot Mr. Cross’s request to proceed without prepayment of costs or
fees. The relevant statute does not permit litigants to avoid payment of filing and
docketing fees, only prepayment of those fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),(b)(1).
2
Though we have ruled on Mr. Cross’s request for a COA, he remains obligated to pay all
filing and docketing fees.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
3