Opinion
23-5109
10-23-2023
In re: MARCUS E. LOLAR, Movant.
(D.C. Nos. 4:16-CV-00692-GKF-JFJ, 4:18-CV-00397-TCK-JFJ &4:23-CV-00269-GKF-CDL) (N.D. Okla.)
Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
An Oklahoma jury found Marcus E. Lolar guilty of robbery and burglary. He received a sixteen-year prison sentence. He has already challenged his judgment of conviction in a habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He now moves for authorization to file another § 2254 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Mr. Lolar represents himself, so we construe his filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
We may authorize a second or successive § 2254 claim only if Mr. Lolar shows that one of these two circumstances exists:
1. His "claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." § 2244(b)(2)(A).
2. The "factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence" and "the facts underlying the claim . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense." § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Mr. Lolar's new § 2254 application would raise several claims: neither a magistrate nor a judge signed the probable-cause affidavit following his arrest; police arrested him outside of their jurisdiction; police arrested him without a warrant or probable cause; the trial court improperly admitted the probable-cause affidavit; the trial court failed to adequately address Mr. Lolar's claim that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court has shown bias against Mr. Lolar; and the trial court gave an incomplete response to his request for discovery.
Mr. Lolar has not shown that any of his new claims rely on a new rule of law or newly discovered evidence. And he appears to concede that at least some of his new claims do not rely on a new rule of law or newly discovered evidence. See, e.g., Mot. for Authorization at 8.
The pagination of Mr. Lolar's motion is irregular. This citation refers to the eighth page of the motion.
We deny Mr. Lolar's motion for authorization to file another § 2254 application. This denial "shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." § 2244(b)(3)(E).