Hernandez v. Bryan, No. 15-6107 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 29, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court GREGORY MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JASON BRYAN, Warden, No. 15-6107 (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00436-R) (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* Before KELLY, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. Gregory Michael Hernandez seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s determination that his most recent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application that it lacked jurisdiction to consider.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Mr. Hernandez appears to think that his application for a COA is the same as a motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. It is not. To the extent that he wants to seek authorization he should do so by completing and filing this court’s forms for requesting authorization. To obtain a COA, Mr. Hernandez must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Hernandez previously sought relief under § 2254 and was unsuccessful. See Hernandez v. Parker, 524 F. App’x 401, 402, 408 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct. 1319 (2014). He has not obtained this court’s authorization. No reasonable jurist would find it debatable that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling that his most recent application was second or successive and the court properly dismissed it. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Entered for the Court ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
