illustrates why he cannot meet the standard for issuance of a COA. No useful purpose would be served by us writing anything further. Accordingly, Petitioner’s application for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 . We note Petitioner has a long list of prior court filings and is a “three striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The PLRA, however, does not apply to § 2254 petitions. United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 744 (10th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, United States v.
holding that a defendant does not have the right to be represented by counsel in postconviction proceedings which are civil proceedings holding habeas corpus is not a civil action for purposes of the equal access to justice act provision for award of attorney fees to prevailing party holding habeas proceedings are not civil actions for purposes of  1915 recognizing common law rule that the proceedings upon an application for a writ of error coram nobis were like proceedings in habeas corpus regarded as civil in character recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings