BATTLE v. BEILS et al
ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING as moot 11 Motion to Amend/Correct; and GRANTING 13 Motion to Dismiss. Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/26/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TERRY LEE BATTLE,
GLEN JOHNSON, Warden,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-163 (MTT)
28 U.S.C. § 2254
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle’s Recommendation
(Doc. 21) to grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) Petitioner’s federal habeas
petition for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Additionally, the Magistrate
Judge recommends denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 11). Id. Petitioner
objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 23. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court has reviewed the Recommendation, considered Petitioner’s objection, and has
made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which
Petitioner objects. The Court adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge. Further, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED.1
Although Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP was not explicitly granted by the Magistrate Judge, the
proceedings show the motion was treated as granted—the record shows Petitioner was not required to
pre-pay a filing fee and Respondent was ordered twice to respond to the complaint. Docs. 7; 9.
Nonetheless, the Court makes it clear that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP is granted.
To file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas
corpus, a petitioner must “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider” the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Without authorization to consider the second or successive petition, the district court
lacks jurisdiction. In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016); see Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-157 (2007); Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
713 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, Petitioner has failed to obtain
authorization from the Eleventh Circuit prior to filing his second federal habeas petition.
In 1989, Petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition challenging his 1979
burglary conviction. Doc. 14-1 at 1, 5. At that time, the sentence for that conviction had
already expired. Doc. 14-2 at 2-3. This Court adopted a Recommendation dismissing
the petition for not meeting the “in custody” requirement of 2254(b). Docs. 14-2 at 2-3
(citing Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989) (holding the use of a prior conviction
to enhance a sentence for a later conviction does not mean the petitioner is “in custody”
for the prior conviction after the sentence has expired)); 14-3. The Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner’s federal habeas petition on December 18, 1991.
Doc. 14-5 at 2-3. Petitioner now files his second federal habeas petition challenging
that conviction. Doc. 1. Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Eleventh
Circuit to file this successive petition, and, therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to
consider his petition and the petition must be dismissed. See Terrell, 141 F. App’x at
852 (holding where the court lacks jurisdiction because of petitioner’s second or
successive petitions, the claims raised in the motion should be dismissed). The Court
must also deny as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Amend.
Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED and Petitioner’s federal habeas petition is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is DENIED as moot. It is therefore
ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice to the Petitioner's rights to
file a motion in the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file a second or successive habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to furnish
Petitioner with the application form required by the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file a
second or successive habeas petition.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court can issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) only if a petitioner “has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To merit a COA, the Court must determine “that reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved
in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). For a procedural ruling, the
petitioner must show “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Under this standard, the COA is DENIED.2
A COA determination likely is unnecessary. Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246-47 (11th Cir.
2004). Nevertheless, the Court addresses the issue.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of January, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?