Case Explained: Vreeland v. Long, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 1:25-CV-02647-LTB-RTG) The Tenth Circuit denied Delmart E.J.M. Vreeland’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The court held that no reasonable jurist would debate the propriety of the dismissal because the federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. The court applied the standard for granting a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which requires a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” or, in cases dismissed on procedural grounds, a showing that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim or whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The court determined that a plain procedural bar existed: the Colorado Court of Appeals had declared the June 5, 2025, state court order (which Vreeland challenged in his federal filing) void and without legal effect because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it while an appeal was pending. Citing *Magwood v. Patterson* and *Hayes v. Evans*, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that a habeas petition challenges a specific judgment authorizing custody; once that judgment is voided or mooted by state proceedings, federal jurisdiction under § 2254 disappears. Because the judgment Vreeland sought to challenge no longer existed or authorized his custody, reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court correctly dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. As a practical consequence, the appeal is terminated, and Vreeland’s federal habeas petition remains dismissed without reaching the merits of his constitutional claims. He is barred from pursuing this specific challenge in federal court unless he obtains authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2254 application based on a valid new judgment, which the court indicated does not exist in this instance. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.