Bauhaus v. Crow

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 19, 2022
• Docket: 22-6018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-6018 Document: 010110726976 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JAMES BAUHAUS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 22-6018 (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-01003-JD) SCOTT CROW, (W.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, KELLY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

James Bauhaus, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate

of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his

unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

In 1974, Mr. Bauhaus was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life

imprisonment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and

sentence on direct appeal. Bauhaus v. State, 532 P.2d 434, 444 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).

In 1996, Mr. Bauhaus filed his first § 2254 petition in federal district court, claiming,

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 22-6018 Document: 010110726976 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 2

among other things, a violation of due process based on the alleged concealment of blood

and fingerprint evidence and witnesses’ descriptions of the perpetrator. The district court

denied the petition, and this court denied a COA. See Bauhaus v. Reynolds, No. 98-5054,

1998 WL 453679, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 1998). Mr. Bauhaus has since filed numerous

unsuccessful post-conviction applications for relief in state court, federal district court,

and this court attempting to collaterally attack his conviction. He filed the § 2254

petition at issue here in October 2020, largely reasserting the same claims he has raised in

prior habeas petitions. The district court concluded the petition was an unauthorized

second or successive § 2254 petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

To appeal the district court’s order, Mr. Bauhaus must obtain a COA. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482 (2000). To obtain a

COA, he must show both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (emphasis added). We need not reach the constitutional

component of this standard because it is apparent Mr. Bauhaus cannot meet his burden on

the procedural one. See id. at 485.

A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2254 petition unless he first

obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district court to consider the

petition. 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. In re Cline,

531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

2 Appellate Case: 22-6018 Document: 010110726976 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 3

We liberally construe Mr. Bauhaus’s pro se combined opening brief and

application for a COA. See Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). In his

COA application, Mr. Bauhaus does not dispute that he previously filed a § 2254 petition

and that he did not obtain authorization from this court to file another one. Nor does he

dispute the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling dismissing his latest

§ 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he argues the merits of his underlying

claims.

Because Mr. Bauhaus has not shown that jurists of reason would debate whether

the district court’s procedural ruling was correct, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

We also deny Mr. Bauhaus’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment

of costs or fees.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk