Mays v. Rankins

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JERRY LEE MAYS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 22-5047 (D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00225-GKF-JFJ) CHRIS RANKINS, (N.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _________________________________

Before HOLMES, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Jerry Lee Mays, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se,1 seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s determination that his most recent

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application

that it lacked jurisdiction to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Mr. Mays has filed

an application for a COA, and what appears to be a supplement to his application.

Having reviewed both pleadings, we deny a COA and dismiss this appeal.

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Because Mr. Mays appears pro se, we liberally construe his filings. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we do not make arguments for pro se litigants or otherwise advocate on their behalf. Id. Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 2

To obtain a COA, Mr. Mays must show “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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Mr. Mays previously sought relief under § 2254 and was unsuccessful. See Mays

v. Dinwiddie, 441 F. App’x 575, 576, 577 (10th Cir. 2011). He has not obtained this

court’s authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider

the application.”). No reasonable jurist would find it debatable that the district court was

correct in its procedural ruling that his most recent application was an unauthorized

second or successive application, and the court properly dismissed it. See In re Cline,

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

We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We note that Mr. Mays filed a motion

for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees, then attempted to

file a second such motion that is largely identical to the first. We grant his first motion,

and deny the second as moot.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk