Courtney v. Pettigrew

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
TRAYC COURTNEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LUKE PETTIGREW,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 20-5049
(D.C. No. 4:20-CV-00103-CVE-JFJ)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
*

_________________________________
Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Trayc Courtney, 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 habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We
deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
Courtney was convicted of first degree murder and shooting with intent to kill.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
After filing an unsuccessful state-court post-conviction motion, Courtney filed his first

*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

August 12, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-5049 Document: 010110390348 Date Filed: 08/12/2020 Page: 1

2

§ 2254 application in 2010. The district court denied relief, rejecting some of his claims
on the merits and denying others as procedurally barred.
Courtney filed the § 2254 petition at issue here in March 2020, making some new
claims and reasserting some of the claims he raised in his first application. The district
court concluded that the petition was an unauthorized second or successive § 2254
application and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
To appeal the district court’s order, Courtney 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 that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 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).
We liberally construe Courtney’s pro se combined opening brief and application
for a COA (COA application). See Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002).
In his COA application, Courtney does not dispute that he previously filed a § 2254
application 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
March 2020 § 2254 application for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he argues the merits of
Appellate Case: 20-5049 Document: 010110390348 Date Filed: 08/12/2020 Page: 2

3

his underlying claims. Because Courtney has not shown that jurists of reason would
debate whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct, we deny a COA.
Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk
Appellate Case: 20-5049 Document: 010110390348 Date Filed: 08/12/2020 Page: 3