Selden v. Unknown Respondent

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing case without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case and send petitioner one "Application for Leave to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) By a Prisoner in State Custody" form. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/13/2018. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GLENN LEE SELDEN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-131-FtM-29MRM

Case No:

2:18-cv-187-FtM-29MRM

Case No:

2:18-cv-203-FtM-29CM

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH,
Respondent.

GLENN LEE SELDEN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,
Respondent.

GLENN LEE SELDEN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
These matters come before the Court on initial review of the
respective related files.

As more fully explained below, the

Court finds the above cases warrant summary dismissal.

BACKGROUND
Case No:

2:18-cv-131-FtM-29MRM

On February 26, 2018, Petitioner, Glenn Lee Selden(“Selden”),
initiated the above case by filing a pleading entitled “Equity Law
Restricts Judicial Process-Military” (Doc. 1).

Selden, who is

incarcerated within the Florida Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
at Moore Haven Correctional Facility, is serving a fifteen (15)
year sentence and various concurrent five (5) years sentences in
connection with offenses committed on or about March 22, 2006, for
which he was sentenced on August 20, 2007.

See Florida Department

of Corrections Offender Network, located at www.dc.state.fl.us.
The pleading is comprised of references to various unrelated
statutes.

The only conceivable conclusion discernable from the

pleading is that Selden believes he is being illegally confined.
See Doc. 1 at 11 (wherein Selden requests that the Court “Order
Sec’y D.O.C. Julie L. Jones for my emergency release . . .”).
Consequently, the Court construes the pleading in the above case
to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. 1
Case No. 2:18-cv-187-FtM-29MRM
On March 19, 2018, Selden initiated the above case by filing

1

The Court finds it would be futile to direct Petitioner to
file an amended petition on the form approved for use in section
2254 cases.
A review of the Court’s files reveals that, in

- 2 -

a pleading entitled “Correct the Order and Immediate Release Order”
(Doc. 1).

The pleading, similar to the one Selden earlier filed,

is a compilation of various unrelated statues.

The pleading also

contains documents from a prior case Selden filed in the Florida
Supreme Court.

Again the only conceivable conclusion discernable

from the pleading is that Selden believes he is being illegally
confined.

See Doc. 1 at 24-25 (wherein Selden states “I aver

actual innocence.
the

Court

to

I aver I did not commit the crime” and requests

send

him

a

“Release

Order

within

72

hours.”)

Consequently, the Court construes the pleading in the above case
to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
Case No. 2:18-cv-203-FtM-29CM
On March 26, 2018, Selden initiated the above case by filing
a pleading entitled “Demand of Immediate Release” (Doc. 1).

The

pleading, mirrors both of Selden’s earlier pleadings, and lists
various

federal

and

state

statutes

and

statements

of

law.

Intermixed within the pleading is correspondence from outside
agencies, including the Department of Justice and Social Security
Administration.

Again, the only discernable relief Selden seeks

addition to these three cases, Petitioner filed 11 additional
section 2254 petitions or pleadings construed as section 2254 cases
in the Middle District of Florida. See http://ecf.flmd.cir11.dcn.

- 3 -

is an order directing DOC to “release” him. See Doc. 1 at 3.
Consequently, the Court construes the pleading in the above case
to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
DISCUSSION
Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires both a
preliminary review of an application for the writ of habeas corpus
and summary dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court. . . .”

The Court takes

judicial notice that Petitioner previously filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition challenging the conviction for which he currently is
incarcerated.

See Selden v. McNeil, Case No. 8:10-cv-02259-T-

33EAJ (M.D. Fla.).

Petitioner has not obtained leave from the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in The
United States District Courts, R. 9.

“Without authorization, the

district

to

court

lacks

successive petition.”

jurisdiction

consider

a

second

or

Pavon v. Attorney Gen. Fla., No. 17-10508,

2018 WL 1733232, at *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2018) (citing Farris v.
United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)).
The Court recognizes that the term “second or successive” is
not self-defining and not all habeas applications filed subsequent

- 4 -

to the first filed habeas are per se successive.

Panetti v.

Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 943-44 (2007); Stewart v. United States,
646 F.3d 856, 860 (11th Cir. 2011).

Having thoroughly reviewed

each of the pleadings in the above cases, the Court finds that
Selden has not asserted any facts or claims that would fall within
the

“small

subset

of

unavailable

categorized as successive.”
Consequently,

the

claims

that

must

not

be

Stewart at 863

above

cases

will

be

dismissed

without

prejudice to allow Selden the opportunity to seek authorization
from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals should he wish to lodge
a second challenge to his current incarceration.

A petitioner

should be aware that § 2244(b) (2) limits the circumstances under
which the Court of Appeals will authorize the filing of a second
or successive habeas corpus petition.

Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d) imposes a time limitation on the filing of a habeas corpus
petition.

Selden, in seeking relief in the Court of Appeals,

should be cognizant of both these provisions. 2
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Case Nos. 2:18-cv-131-FtM-29MRM, 2:18-cv-187-FtM-29MRM,

2

A certificate of appealability(COA), typically required for
appeals from a final order of a habeas proceeding, is not required
for an appeal of an order dismissing a petitioner’s filing as a
successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Hubbard v.
Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

- 5 -

and 2:18-cv-203-FtM-29CM are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
2.
motions,

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending
close

the

respective

cases,

and

send

Petitioner

an

“Application for Leave to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus
Petition 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) By a Prisoner in State Custody” form.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of April, 2018.

SA: FTMP-1
Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 6 -

13th

day