ORDER

MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion [DE #126] entitled "Petitioner's Independent Action in Equity" in which defendant moves pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for this court to vacate or alter his sentence. Along with this motion, defendant has filed several other related motions [DE #129, #130, #131, #134]. Defendant is in custody and seeks to vacate his conviction and/or sentence. Upon review of the motion, the court finds it is, in reality, a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (3) (A) provides that before a second or successive habeas corpus application may be filed in the district court, the applicant must move the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.

The petitioner has filed a previous 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim; therefore this court is without jurisdiction to review the matter until authorized to do so by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Accordingly this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for the petitioner to seek authorization to file this application in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Additionally, petitioner's related motions [DE #129, #130, #131, #134] are denied as moot.

A certificate of appealability shall not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2) (2000). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that an assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling dismissing such claims is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). A reasonable jurist would not find this court's dismissal of petitioner's § 2255 motion debatable. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.