Scott v. Bridges

Appellate Case: 24-7089 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/05/2025 Page: 1

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2025

_________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court BRIAN TYRONE SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 24-7089

(D.C. No. 6:22-CV-00277-RAW-DES) CARRIE BRIDGES, Warden, (E.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee.

_________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

_________________________________ Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ Brian Tyrone Scott, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from (1) the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for lack of jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application, and (2) its denial of his motion for reconsideration, which it construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

Before he can appeal, Scott must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To do so, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). The district court dismissed his § 2254 application and partially denied his

Appellate Case: 24-7089 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 02/05/2025 Page: 2 Rule 59(e) motion on a procedural ground—that the district court does not have jurisdiction to hear a second or successive § 2254 application without this court’s prior authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). For a COA, therefore, Scott must show reasonable jurists “would find it debatable” not only “whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,” but also “whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

In seeking a COA, Scott focuses on his challenges to his Oklahoma convictions. He does not address the district court’s determination that it could not entertain unauthorized second or successive § 2254 claims. He thus fails to show that reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s procedural ruling.

We deny the request for a COA and dismiss this matter.

Entered for the Court CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk