White v. Hamilton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-7033
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-7033 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RICKEY WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 25-7033 (D.C. No. 6:24-CV-00426-JFH-JAR) CASEY HAMILTON, (E.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________

Before McHUGH, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Rickey White is an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se. Mr. White filed a

motion in the district court that the court construed as an unauthorized second or

successive petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court

therefore dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. White now requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the

district court’s dismissal (COA Motion). For the reasons that follow, we deny a COA

and dismiss this proceeding.

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-7033 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2025 Page: 2

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1981, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. White of first-degree murder. He

received a life sentence for that crime. See generally White v. State, 702 P.2d 1058

(Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (upholding the conviction and sentence). He has since

brought or attempted to bring numerous actions in federal court challenging his

conviction and sentence.

In October 2024, Mr. White filed a document in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma invoking statutes governing federal

sentences and purporting to request a sentence reduction. Mr. White is serving a state

sentence, not a federal sentence. In any event, as support for such relief, he argued

that his state criminal proceeding had not followed the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, particularly as to presentence reports. He also claimed he received

ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing and the jury never heard

mitigating evidence about alcohol abuse.

The district court concluded it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief

requested because Mr. White was effectively asserting new habeas claims and this

court had not authorized him to bring a successive habeas petition. The district court

therefore dismissed the action and denied a COA. Mr. White then filed a notice of

appeal, leading to this proceeding.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This appeal may not proceed unless this court grants a COA. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1). To merit a COA, Mr. White must make “a substantial showing of the

2 Appellate Case: 25-7033 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2025 Page: 3

denial of a constitutional right.” § 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. Finally, “[a]lthough we liberally construe pro se filings,

we do not assume the role of advocate.” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1

(10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

In the COA Motion, Mr. White focuses entirely on arguments that his state

prosecution violated his constitutional rights. Some of these arguments are not the

same as those he made in his district-court motion. In any event, he does not offer

any argument why the district court’s procedural dismissal was wrong. Nor do we

see any debatable issue. Regardless of the authorities invoked, Mr. White’s district-

court motion was a request for relief from his state-court conviction based on alleged

errors in the conviction and sentence. It was therefore, in substance, a habeas claim.

See, e.g., Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1226 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a

Rule 60(b) motion claiming error in the state-court prosecution was “in reality a

second attempt to assert a successive habeas claim”). The district court correctly

dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. See 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

3 Appellate Case: 25-7033 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2025 Page: 4

successive § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required

authorization.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

We grant Mr. White’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees.

We deny a COA, however, and dismiss this matter.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk