ORDER

CHARLES R. BUTLER, Jr., Senior District Judge.

On July 8, 2015, Carl Brock filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Doc. 143, CDCA 15-5142-CAS Doc. 1.) Invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as the basis for relief, Petitioner asserted the same claim previously raised in this Court in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and in a subsequent petition for writ of audita querela. The California district court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim "falls under § 2255 and not § 2241." (Id., CDCA 15-5142-CAS Doc. 5.) Therefore, the action was transferred to this district as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. As such, it is a second or successive petition filed without authorization from the appellate court and is, therefore, due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (second or successive motion must be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals).

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings requires that the district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order on a § 2255 motion. When a court denies a motion "on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of any constitutional claims, . . . a petitioner will be granted a certificate of appealability only if [he] makes both a substantial showing that he had a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and a substantial showing that the procedural ruling is wrong," Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A "substantial showing means" that the issues—both substantive and procedural—are debatable among jurists of reason. Id. In this case, there is no need to consider the constitutional issue because it is no jurist of reason could find that this § 2255 motion was not a second or successive petition. Accordingly, the certificate of appealability is DENIED. Furthermore, leave to appeal from this order in forma pauperis will be DENIED prospectively because any appeal would be plainly frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if court certifies it is not taken in good faith); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (good faith means nonfrivolous); Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact).

DONE and ORDERED.