Opinion
21-7066
12-21-2021
In re: RICKEY WHITE, Movant.
(D.C. No. 6:21-CV-00281-RAW-KEW) (E.D. Okla.)
Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Rickey White recently filed a motion for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application in the Eleventh Circuit. That court transferred Mr. White's motion to this court because he is an Oklahoma prisoner seeking to challenge his Oklahoma state conviction. His transferred motion seeks authorization based on the same grounds as a motion for authorization he filed in this court in November 2021 in case no. 21-7062. Compare In re White, No. 21-7062, Mot. for Authorization at 1-5 (10th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021), with In re White, No. 21-7066, Mot. for Authorization at 1-6 (10th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021).
As he did in his earlier motion in case no. 21-7062, Mr. White seeks authorization to bring a claim that the Oklahoma state court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because the charged offense occurred in Indian Country, relying on the Supreme Court's decision mMcGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020). We denied authorization in case no. 21-7062 because Mr. White did not show, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), that McGirt announced a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. See In re White, No. 21-7062, Order at 3 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2021). For the same reasons we denied his motion in case no. 21-7062, we deny his motion in this case. This denial of authorization "shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). We also warn Mr. White that he may be subject to sanctions if he again attempts to challenge his conviction or sentence with arguments substantially similar to those presented here.