Earnest Eugene Walker, Jr. v. State of Kansas

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
EARNEST EUGENE WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 21-3137
(D.C. No. 5:21-CV-03150-SAC)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Petitioner Earnest Eugene Walker, Jr., a former Oklahoma state prisoner appearing
pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he may appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for lack of jurisdiction. Because Walker has failed to satisfy the standards for
issuance of a COA, we deny his request and dismiss the matter.
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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
October 4, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3137 Document: 010110585389 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
I
On June 24, 2021, Walker initiated these federal habeas proceedings by filing a
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and supporting materials. See ROA at 3.
Walker asserted claims for (1) denial of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights;
(2) denial of Thirteenth Amendment rights to be free from involuntary servitude;
(3) denial of Fifth Amendment due process and double jeopardy rights; (4) denial of
Sixth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel; and (5) denial of Eighth
Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 7–14. The petition did
not allege that Walker is in custody.
On July 1, 2021, the district court issued an order directing Walker to show cause
why his petition should not be dismissed because he is no longer in custody on the
challenged convictions, and to articulate any relief he seeks. ROA at 77–80. Walker
responded on July 14, 2021, but did not show cause why his case should not be
dismissed. See ROA at 81–83. Instead, he stated: “petitioner is no longer in custody but
has a legal question to be answered by the next highest court for which the Kansas
supreme court denied the petition for review.” Id. at 82. His questions were “whether
the sentences served were illegal or not” and, “if the federal habeas corpus is not the
appropriate venue for resolution that the court consider the merits of the case for seeking
a resolution at the federal court level.” Id. at 82–83.
Apparently, Walker seeks either to appeal Kansas state court determinations
regarding the legality of his sentences or else to request an advisory opinion from the
district court on the legality of his sentences. See id.
Appellate Case: 21-3137 Document: 010110585389 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
II
“A state prisoner whose petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied by a federal
district court does not enjoy an absolute right to appeal.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759,
773 (2017). “Federal law requires that he first obtain a COA from a circuit justice or
judge.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)). To obtain a COA, a state prisoner must make
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This requires the prisoner to “sho[w] that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). In other words, the prisoner must show that the
district court’s resolution of the claims was “debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at
484. When a district court dismisses a § 2254 claim on procedural grounds, a petitioner
is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable
whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the district
court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. at 484–85.
Relief through section 2254 is only available to “a person in custody.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. “The custody requirement is jurisdictional.” Mays v. Dinwiddie, 580 F.3d 1136,
1139 (10th Cir. 2009).
III
Walker is not entitled to a COA because reasonable jurists could not debate that
the district court lacked jurisdiction. Walker did not allege that he was in custody. See
Appellate Case: 21-3137 Document: 010110585389 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
ROA at 92. Moreover, the district court gave Walker an opportunity to show that he was
in custody and he admitted that he was not. See ROA at 82. Even when liberally
construed, nothing in Walker’s combined opening brief and application for a COA
indicates he alleged he was in custody. Walker asserts that someone in the district court
clerk’s office indicated he could file a petition under Section 2254 whether he was in
custody or not; makes vague assertions that an adverse ruling shows that the district court
was biased against him; and asks this court to liberally construe his petition “as a motion
to correct the illegal sentence.” Aplt. Br. and Ap. for COA at 5–6. None of these
arguments can overcome the fact that the district court had no jurisdiction to hear
Walker’s habeas petition when he was not in custody. See Mays, 580 F.3d at 1139. And
no matter how liberally it is construed, Walker’s petition is clearly for a writ of habeas
corpus, not a correction of his sentence. See ROA at 3. Consequently, we conclude he
has failed to establish that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s analysis
debatable.
The application for COA is therefore DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-3137 Document: 010110585389 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --