Meza v. State of New Mexico

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 25-2028
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-2028 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 16, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARTIN MEZA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 25-2028 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-00650-KG-JHR) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, (D. N.M.)

Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Martin Meza is a New Mexico prisoner serving a ninety-year prison sentence

for multiple sexual abuse convictions. He previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely. See Meza v. Martinez,

491 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1006 (D.N.M. 2020) (dismissing Meza’s claims as “barred by

the § 2244(d) statute of limitations”).

Four years later, in June 2024, Meza filed a new § 2254 petition alleging five

claims. The district court dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction because it

fell within the definition of a “second or successive” petition under § 2244(b) and

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-2028 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 2

this court had not authorized Meza to bring the petition as required by

§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Meza then filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his June

2024 petition, resulting in this proceeding, and he moved for a certificate of

appealability (COA). Whether to issue a COA is the issue now before us.

To merit a COA, Meza must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This means he “must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). And he

must make an extra showing in this circumstance because the district court resolved

his motion on a procedural basis, namely, lack of jurisdiction. So he must also show

that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Id.

Although Meza says he is asking for a COA, it is clear in context that he is

actually asking for authorization to file his second or successive habeas claims. He

never mentions the COA standards, such as § 2253(c)(2) and Slack. He instead

repeatedly focuses on the requirements for second or successive petitions as

established in § 2244(b)(2), and he attempts to explain why his claims fit those

requirements.

“[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, . . . as warranted in the interests of justice.” Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d

1213, 1219 n.8 (10th Cir. 2006). At first glance, this seems like a good case for the

2 Appellate Case: 25-2028 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 3

exercise of such discretion. It is, for example, the opposite of a problem the Fourth

Circuit has pointed out in this context, “when a petitioner-appellant has focused his

briefing on challenging the reasoning of the district court’s dismissal, instead of

detailing his grounds for pre-filing authorization of a successive petition,” Jones v.

Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 690 (4th Cir. 2004). Meza has instead focused on “detailing

his grounds for pre-filing authorization of a successive petition” and ignored “the

reasoning of the district court’s dismissal.”

But one circumstance causes us to hesitate before construing his COA motion

as a motion for authorization. In the district court, Meza brought five claims for

habeas relief, including a claim that the State allegedly failed to disclose exculpatory

evidence (the results of a rape kit test). In the motion before us, Meza says in an

introductory paragraph that he wants authorization for those same five claims. But

the argument that follows contains nothing about the alleged failure to disclose

exculpatory evidence. There is, instead, what seems to be a new claim challenging

whether the indictment gave him fair notice of the charges against him.

Under the circumstances, it appears Meza may have not carefully considered

the claims for which he seeks authorization. We therefore exercise our discretion not

to treat his COA motion as a motion for authorization to file a second or successive

habeas petition. This course of action preserves Meza’s opportunity to bring all the

arguments he wishes to make in a properly filed motion for authorization, should he

choose to do so.

3 Appellate Case: 25-2028 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 4

Because Meza has failed to argue that he deserves a COA under § 2253(c)(2)

and Slack, we deny a COA and dismiss this proceeding. In the letter transmitting this

decision to Meza, the Clerk shall include a copy of this court’s standard form for

motions for authorization to bring a second or successive habeas petition.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk