Mays v. Tulsa County Courthouse of Oklahoma
678 F. App'x 782
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mays, an Oklahoma prisoner, was convicted on multiple violent and firearms-related charges with sentence enhancements for prior felonies.
- He previously pursued and exhausted state remedies and filed a § 2254 habeas petition; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA in Mays v. Dinwiddie.
- Mays filed multiple unauthorized requests in the Tenth Circuit and at least two unauthorized second or successive § 2254 applications in district court.
- After this court denied authorization for a claim based on Oklahoma’s Justice Safety Valve Act, Mays filed a 2016 district-court submission asking whether the new law allowed a new appeal; the district court docketed it as a § 2254 application and Mays later amended it.
- The district court dismissed the 2016 filing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application for which Mays had not obtained this court’s prior authorization.
- Mays sought a COA to appeal the dismissal; the panel denied a COA, concluding no reasonable jurist could debate the procedural dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by dismissing the 2016 filing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application | Mays argued the Justice Safety Valve Act applied to his sentences and thus his filing raised a new claim meriting review | Respondent argued Mays had previously litigated these convictions and did not obtain required Tenth Circuit authorization for a successive petition | Held: Dismissal affirmed; district court lacked jurisdiction because Mays did not obtain required authorization and this court had already denied authorization |
| Whether jurists of reason could debate the procedural ruling for COA purposes | Mays focused on merits of the new-law claim, implying debate on dismissal | Respondent emphasized statutory bar on successive petitions and prior denial of authorization | Held: No; under Slack, both the merits and procedural rulings must be debatably incorrect for a COA, and here the procedural ground is not debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain unauthorized successive § 2254 petitions)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (COA standards when district court dismisses on procedural grounds)
- Mays v. Dinwiddie, [citation="441 F. App'x 575"] (10th Cir. 2011) (denying COA on prior § 2254 challenges)