USCA4 Appeal: 25-6096 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6096

HECTOR LUIS PAGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director/Va. Dept. of Corr., Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00076-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 23, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hector Luis Pagan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6096 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Hector Luis Pagan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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)).

The district court dismissed Pagan’s petition after determining that he had filed a previous § 2254 petition and had not obtained authorization to file a successive petition.

However, the authorization requirements apply only when the petitioner has filed a previous § 2254 petition that was adjudicated on the merits. Farabee v. Clark, 967 F.3d 380, 389 (4th Cir. 2020); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 485-86 (2000).

Pagan’s prior § 2254 petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, which is not an adjudication on the merits; thus, a later-filed petition is not second or successive.

See Slack, 529 U.S. at 478, 485-86. We therefore grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further proceedings.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6096 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED