Dean D. Hackborn v. Attorney General State of Colorado

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
DEAN D. HACKBORN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 20-1398
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01613-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Dean D. Hackborn has been serving a prison sentence for a Colorado conviction
since 2006.1 In 2013, he challenged that conviction in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and
his petition was dismissed as time-barred. He then needed authorization from this court
before filing a second or successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Without obtaining authorization, however, he filed another § 2254 petition in the district
court. That court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 Mr. Hackborn represents himself. We construe his filings liberally without going
so far as to take on the role of his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 1, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1398 Document: 010110486184 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition. And it denied Mr. Hackborn a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal its order.
Mr. Hackborn now seeks a COA from us. To obtain one, he must show “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, 478 (2000). But he does not
dispute either (1) that this case involves his second § 2254 petition or (2) that he did not
have authorization to file it. Given those two facts, no reasonable jurist could debate the
district court’s decision to dismiss the petition: the court correctly concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of an unauthorized second or successive § 2254
petition. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
We grant Mr. Hackborn’s motion to proceed without prepaying fees, deny his
application for a COA, and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk
Appellate Case: 20-1398 Document: 010110486184 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --