Tunzy A. Sanders v. Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7321

TUNZY A. SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01819-HMH)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tunzy A. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Tunzy A. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying on the merits
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from the court’s prior judgment denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.
See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has not made
the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motions, Sanders challenged the substance of the
district court’s resolution of his claims attacking his convictions. Therefore, the motions
should have been construed as successive § 2254 petitions. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015).
Absent prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain Sanders’ successive § 2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2018).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED