UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CHRISTOPHER LEYJA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-694-J ) STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens for initial proceedings consistent with

. [Doc. No. 4]. On September 17, 2025, Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and that the Court deny Petitioner’s IFP motion. See [Doc. No. 5]. Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation by October 8, 2025. Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file his objections and has timely filed his objections which triggers de novo review. Petitioner has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Stephens concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Petition because Petitioner does not have Tenth Circuit authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. In his objections, Petitioner does not dispute that his current petition is a successive habeas petition and does not assert that he obtained authorization from the Tenth Circuit prior to filing his current §2254 petition. “A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive 2255 or

claim until [the Tenth Circuit] has granted the required authorization.” In re Cline,

(10th Cir. 2008). If a district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it has the discretion to transfer the case to the Tenth Circuit if the transfer is in the interest of justice. See

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court concurs that the petition should be dismissed rather than transferred to the Tenth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5], DISMISSES the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, and DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] and Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 9]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 34 day of November, 2025.

TUDE mM. BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE