UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER LEYJA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-694-J
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
[Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens for
initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636. [Doc. No. 4]. On September 17, 2025, Judge
Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the petition
for lack of jurisdiction and that the Court deny Petitioner’s IFP motion. See [Doc. No. 5].
Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation by October 8,
2025. Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file his objections and has timely filed his
objections which triggers de novo review. Petitioner has also filed a motion to appoint counsel.
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Stephens concludes that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Petition because Petitioner does not have Tenth Circuit authorization
to file a second or successive habeas petition. In his objections, Petitioner does not dispute that
his current petition is a successive habeas petition and does not assert that he obtained authorization
from the Tenth Circuit prior to filing his current §2254 petition. “A district court does not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim until
[the Tenth Circuit] has granted the required authorization.” In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th
Cir. 2008). If a district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it has the discretion to transfer
the case to the Tenth Circuit if the transfer is in the interest of justice. See id. For the reasons set
forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court concurs that the petition should be dismissed
rather than transferred to the Tenth Circuit.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5],
DISMISSES the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, and DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] and Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 9].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 34 day of November, 2025.
TUDE mM.
BERNARD M. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.