Opinion
21-5054
07-28-2021
In re: VERNELL MCKNIGHT, JR., Petitioner.
D.C. No. 4:12-CV-00029-CVE-FHM, N.D. Okla.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Vernell McKnight, Jr., a state inmate appearing pro se, has filed a motion seeking authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We deny the motion.
In 1984, Mr. McKnight pleaded guilty to manslaughter in Oklahoma state court, and since then has repeatedly challenged his conviction in this court. McKnight v. White, 468 Fed.Appx. 912 (10th Cir. 2012); McKnight v. Dinwiddie, 362 Fed.Appx. 900 (10th Cir. 2010); McKnight v. Shumaker, 244 Fed.Appx. 233 (10th Cir. 2007); McKnight v. White, No. 95-5043, 1995 WL 607623 (10th Cir. Oct. 16, 1995); McKnight v. White, No. 89-5163 (10th Cir. May 23, 1990).
"A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Despite this rule, Mr. McKnight insists in his motion that the claims he proposes to raise in a successive habeas corpus petition involve the same argument he has raised in past habeas petitions. Having reviewed Mr. McKnight's previous applications, we agree.
In each of the challenges Mr. McKnight has pursued in this court, the core of his claims has been essentially the same. In his first habeas petition, the magistrate judge initially recommended granting the petition because the sentencing transcript did not affirmatively demonstrate Mr. McKnight was aware of the nature of the offense charged. The district court adopted this recommendation, but later granted the state's Rule 60(b) motion and conducted an evidentiary hearing, at the conclusion of which it held Mr. McKnight's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See McKnight, 362 Fed.Appx. at 901-02; McKnight, No. 89-5163, slip op. at 3, 5. Mr. McKnight has repeatedly insisted the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the state's Rule 60(b) motion, a position we have repeatedly rejected.
Because Mr. McKnight's proposed claims have been presented in prior applications, we deny his motion. 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).