(D.C. Nos. 5:23-CV-03221-JWL & 5:23-CV-03222-JWL) (D. Kan.)
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Anthony Leroy Davis, proceeding pro se, seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. We deny authorization.
In 1989, Mr. Davis was convicted after a jury trial in Kansas state court of aggravated arson, aggravated robbery, and first-degree felony murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. He filed his first § 2254 habeas application in 2003, which the district court dismissed as time-barred. He then sought a certificate of appealability, which this court denied. Since that time, he has filed multiple additional § 2254 applications, all of which have been dismissed.
Mr. Davis now seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas application. To be entitled to authorization, he must make a prima facie showing that his claims rely on a new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). He has not made this showing.
Mr. Davis states in his proposed habeas application that he has newly discovered evidence. But he does not explain what that evidence is or how it meets the requirements in § 2244(b)(2). Specifically, he has failed to identify any facts that he could not have discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence and he has failed to show that any new facts, "if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty of the underlying offense." § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Accordingly, we deny his motion for authorization. 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." § 2244(b)(3)(E). All other pending motions are denied.