FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 19, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
VERNELL MCKNIGHT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 12-5028
v. (D.C. No. 4:12-CV-00029-CVE-FHM)
(N.D. Okla.)
TOM WHITE, Previous Warden;
ANITA TRAMMELL, Present
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Vernell McKnight, Jr., a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate
of appealability (“COA”) so that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Finding that he has not made a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), we deny Mr.
McKnight’s request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.
In 1984, Mr. McKnight was convicted of manslaughter in Oklahoma state
court, upon a guilty plea, and since then has repeatedly challenged his conviction
in this court. McKnight v. Dinwiddie, 362 F. App’x 900 (10th Cir. 2010);
McKnight v. Shumaker, 244 F. App’x 233 (10th Cir. 2007); McKnight v. White,
68 F.3d 483 (Table), 1995 WL 607623 (10th Cir. 1995); McKnight v. White, No.
89-5163 (10th Cir. May 23, 1990). On at least two of these occasions, he has
moved to vacate federal judgments under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); his most recent
motion was so construed below. McKnight v. White, No. 12-cv-0029-CVE-FHM,
Doc. 4, at 2 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2012).
Mr. McKnight argues that “jurists [would] find it debatable that [he] made
a substantial showing of being denied a constitutional right when the federal court
was without jurisdiction to vacate the final judgment entered July 6, 1987.” App.
for COA, at 2. In July 1987, the district court granted his habeas motion. R. 16.
But (as we explained in 1990) the district court, in October 1987, then ordered an
evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of Mr. McKnight’s plea; after it was
found voluntary, the court subsequently ordered his petition dismissed. R. 20-21.
Mr. McKnight objects to this May order, but we find no defect in it.
There is nothing here to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(4), which operates
to relieve a party of a final judgment when the “judgment is void.” Mr. McKnight
has not raised issues that are reasonably debatable; his claims are legally
unsupportable and frivolous. We DENY a COA and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-2-