Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LENNIE DARTEZ MATHIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 25-6181 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-00663-J) CARRIE BRIDGES, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Lennie D. Mathis, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal: (1) the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as a second or successive petition; and (2) the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion. This court lacks jurisdiction over Mathis’s untimely appeal of the
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 2
dismissal of his second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. Furthermore, Mathis
does not need a COA to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Thus, this court
denies his request for a COA as moot. This court exercises appellate jurisdiction over
Mathis’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirms.
In 2008, Mathis was convicted by an Oklahoma state court jury of first-degree
murder. In exchange for the prosecution agreeing not to seek the death penalty,
Mathis agreed to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In
2011, Mathis filed a § 2254 petition in the district court (“2011 petition”), alleging
his plea was not knowing and voluntary and his attorney was constitutionally
ineffective during the plea process. The district court dismissed the 2011 petition on
the merits; this court denied Mathis’s request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.
See Mathis v. Jones, 490 F. App’x 132, 133-36 (10th Cir. 2012). In 2024, Mathis
filed the § 2254 petition underlying this appeal (“2024 petition”). Although he
challenged the same first-degree murder conviction, he raised arguments distinct
from those set out in his 2011 petition. The district court dismissed Mathis’s 2024
petition for lack of jurisdiction, noting that only this court has the authority to permit
the filing of a second or successive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A); see also In re
Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A district court does not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until
[the Tenth Circuit] has granted the required authorization.”). The district court
entered judgment by a separate order.
2 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 3
More than a year after the entry of judgment, Mathis filed a Rule 60(b) motion
seeking relief from the judgment. The district court denied Mathis’s motion,
concluding he “focuse[d] his arguments on the underlying errors in his trial and
sentencing and [gave] little attention to the [district court’s] finding that his claims
cannot be litigated in a successive § 2254 motion without the Tenth Circuit’s prior
approval.” The district court further concluded that, “what little attention [Mathis
did] give the topic [did] not articulate any new argument or otherwise convince the
[district court its] judgment must be vacated to accomplish justice.”
This court lacks jurisdiction over that part of Mathis’s appeal that seeks review
of the district court’s dismissal of his 2024 petition. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P
4(a)(1)(A), Mathis was required to file a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his
2024 petition within thirty days of entry of judgment. The filing of a timely notice of
appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007). Because Mathis filed his notice of appeal more than a year late, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s jurisdictional dismissal of his 2024
petition. 1
Mathis does not need a COA to appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion. No aspect of Mathis’s underlying 2024 petition or his Rule 60(b) motion is a
1 A Rule 60(b) motion filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment can serve to toll the thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Mathis’s Rule 60(b) motion was filed more than a year after entry of judgment and cannot, therefore, toll Rule 4(a)(1)(A)’s thirty-day limit.
3 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 4
true Rule 60(b) motion as described in this court’s seminal precedent. See generally
Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006). Instead of identifying any
infirmity in the integrity of the resolution of his 2011 petition, they both attack the
validity of his underlying state conviction. See id. at 1215-16. Thus, the district
court’s denial of Mathis’s request, pursuant to Rule 60(b), to allow him to proceed
with a second or successive habeas petition is not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)’s
COA requirement. Id. at 1218 (“[T]he COA requirement applies only when the
applicant desires to pursue ‘an appeal.’ See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Filing a second
or successive petition, or seeking authorization to file such a petition, is not an
appeal. Furthermore, both a COA and an application to file a second or successive
petition are gatekeeping functions, and we see no basis for doubling them up such
that petitioners must satisfy both tests before we may authorize them to file a second
or successive petition.”); see also id. at 1219 n.8 (“[W]e may, but are not required to,
exercise discretion to construe a request for a certificate of appealability as an
application to file a second or successive petition, or vice versa as warranted in the
interests of justice.”). Because, under the unique facts of this case, Mathis does not
need a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, we deny
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LENNIE DARTEZ MATHIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 25-6181 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-00663-J) CARRIE BRIDGES, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Lennie D. Mathis, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal: (1) the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as a second or successive petition; and (2) the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion. This court lacks jurisdiction over Mathis’s untimely appeal of the
* This order and judgment 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: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 2
dismissal of his second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. Furthermore, Mathis
does not need a COA to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Thus, this court
denies his request for a COA as moot. This court exercises appellate jurisdiction over
Mathis’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirms.
In 2008, Mathis was convicted by an Oklahoma state court jury of first-degree
murder. In exchange for the prosecution agreeing not to seek the death penalty,
Mathis agreed to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In
2011, Mathis filed a § 2254 petition in the district court (“2011 petition”), alleging
his plea was not knowing and voluntary and his attorney was constitutionally
ineffective during the plea process. The district court dismissed the 2011 petition on
the merits; this court denied Mathis’s request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.
See Mathis v. Jones, 490 F. App’x 132, 133-36 (10th Cir. 2012). In 2024, Mathis
filed the § 2254 petition underlying this appeal (“2024 petition”). Although he
challenged the same first-degree murder conviction, he raised arguments distinct
from those set out in his 2011 petition. The district court dismissed Mathis’s 2024
petition for lack of jurisdiction, noting that only this court has the authority to permit
the filing of a second or successive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A); see also In re
Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A district court does not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until
[the Tenth Circuit] has granted the required authorization.”). The district court
entered judgment by a separate order.
2 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 3
More than a year after the entry of judgment, Mathis filed a Rule 60(b) motion
seeking relief from the judgment. The district court denied Mathis’s motion,
concluding he “focuse[d] his arguments on the underlying errors in his trial and
sentencing and [gave] little attention to the [district court’s] finding that his claims
cannot be litigated in a successive § 2254 motion without the Tenth Circuit’s prior
approval.” The district court further concluded that, “what little attention [Mathis
did] give the topic [did] not articulate any new argument or otherwise convince the
[district court its] judgment must be vacated to accomplish justice.”
This court lacks jurisdiction over that part of Mathis’s appeal that seeks review
of the district court’s dismissal of his 2024 petition. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P
4(a)(1)(A), Mathis was required to file a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his
2024 petition within thirty days of entry of judgment. The filing of a timely notice of
appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007). Because Mathis filed his notice of appeal more than a year late, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s jurisdictional dismissal of his 2024
petition. 1
Mathis does not need a COA to appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion. No aspect of Mathis’s underlying 2024 petition or his Rule 60(b) motion is a
1 A Rule 60(b) motion filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment can serve to toll the thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Mathis’s Rule 60(b) motion was filed more than a year after entry of judgment and cannot, therefore, toll Rule 4(a)(1)(A)’s thirty-day limit.
3 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 4
true Rule 60(b) motion as described in this court’s seminal precedent. See generally
Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006). Instead of identifying any
infirmity in the integrity of the resolution of his 2011 petition, they both attack the
validity of his underlying state conviction. See id. at 1215-16. Thus, the district
court’s denial of Mathis’s request, pursuant to Rule 60(b), to allow him to proceed
with a second or successive habeas petition is not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)’s
COA requirement. Id. at 1218 (“[T]he COA requirement applies only when the
applicant desires to pursue ‘an appeal.’ See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Filing a second
or successive petition, or seeking authorization to file such a petition, is not an
appeal. Furthermore, both a COA and an application to file a second or successive
petition are gatekeeping functions, and we see no basis for doubling them up such
that petitioners must satisfy both tests before we may authorize them to file a second
or successive petition.”); see also id. at 1219 n.8 (“[W]e may, but are not required to,
exercise discretion to construe a request for a certificate of appealability as an
application to file a second or successive petition, or vice versa as warranted in the
interests of justice.”). Because, under the unique facts of this case, Mathis does not
need a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, we deny
his request as moot and proceed to the merits.
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse
of discretion. Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680, 701 (10th Cir. 2020). “An abuse of
discretion is defined in this circuit as a judicial action which is arbitrary, capricious,
or whimsical.” Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990).
4 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 5
The district court acted well inside the bounds of its discretion in denying Mathis’s
Rule 60(b) motion. As the district court correctly noted, Mathis’s motion fails to
grapple with the district court’s previous conclusion—a conclusion that is
undoubtedly correct—that Mathis cannot proceed to file a second or successive
§ 2254 petition without authorization from this court. 2 Thus, Mathis fails to
demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
For those reasons set out above, Mathis’s request for a COA is DENIED as
moot. Mathis’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction to the extent
it seeks review of the dismissal of his 2024 petition. The district court’s order
denying Mathis’s Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED. Because Mathis has failed to
demonstrate “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts
in support of the issues raised on appeal,” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502,
2 In that regard, this court takes judicial notice of our previous denial of permission to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition in In re Mathis, No. 24-6198. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979) (holding this court can take “judicial notice, whether requested or not . . . of its own records and files”). Mathis sought permission to file a second or successive § 2254 petition challenging his Oklahoma murder conviction. Our docket reveals this request was filed shortly after the district court dismissed Mathis’s 2024 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Only after this court denied Mathis’s request to file a second or successive motion did Mathis file the instant Rule 60(b) motion in district court, asking the district court to overturn its prior conclusion that Mathis’s 2024 petition was second or successive. Given all this, it is impossible to conclude Mathis’s Rule 60(b) motion was anything other than an attempt to bypass this court’s statutory gatekeeping function as to the impropriety of Mathis filing a second or successive habeas petition.
5 Appellate Case: 25-6181 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 6
505 (10th Cir. 1991), both of his requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis are
DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge