Stinson v. USA
ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/11/2016. (JHC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TERRY LYNN STINSON,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Terry Lynn Stinson’s Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (Civ. Doc. 1). 1
challenges his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using a firearm in connection with
an armed bank robbery. Stinson contends that he is entitled to relief from his sentence
under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the “residual
clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague, and
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), which held that Johnson applies
retroactively on collateral review.
Because Stinson previously moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(see Case No. 3:98-cv-152-HES, Doc. 1), and because the Court denied the first motion
to vacate (Case No. 3:98-cv-152-HES, Doc. 3), Stinson was required to apply to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second or successive motion to
Citations to the record in the underlying criminal case, United States of America vs. Terry
Lynn Stinson, Case No. 3:90-cr-6-J-34JRK, will be denoted as “Crim. Doc. __.” Citations to the
record in the civil case, Case No. 3:16-cv-743-J-34JRK, will be denoted as “Civ. Doc. __.”
vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application
permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.”). On July 11, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Stinson’s
application. (Crim. Doc. 89, Order Denying S.O.S. Application).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a] second or successive motion must be certified as
provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals….” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h). “Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second
or successive petition.” United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)). Because the Eleventh
Circuit denied Stinson’s application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the current § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Petitioner Terry Lynn Stinson’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence (Civ. Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Clerk shall close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 11th day of October, 2016.
Counsel of record
Pro se petitioner
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?