Case Explained: In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.”). Daniels objected, but the district court found the objections unpersuasive. It concluded Daniels’s claims regarding the

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 Docket: 5:25-CV-01085-R) The tenth-circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed the appeal from the district court’s dismissal of David Lee Daniels II’s second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. The court applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), requiring a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and determined that no reasonable jurist would find debatable whether Daniels stated a valid claim or whether the district court was correct in its procedural rulings. Regarding claims challenging the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act proceeding, the court held they were not cognizable in habeas because challenges to state post-conviction procedures do not implicate the underlying judgment of incarceration. Regarding claims challenging his conviction and sentence based on neurobiological evidence, the court found they constituted unauthorized second or successive § 2254 claims that were available during his prior proceedings. The court further held that no reasonable jurist would debate the district court’s discretion to dismiss rather than transfer the application for authorization under *In re Cline*, given the lack of risk that a meritorious claim would be lost. Consequently, Daniels failed to demonstrate a due process violation regarding notice and opportunity to be heard. The practical consequence is that the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to filing a properly authorized successive petition. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.