MYERS
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a second federal habeas petition filed without prior authorization from the court of appeals is successive and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner filed a second federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 2011 conviction. His prior federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is David C. Myers' Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Myers is a prisoner of the State of Florida, and he challenges various aspects of his 2011 conviction. Myers filed a prior federal habeas petition in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida, styled Myers v. Secʼy, Dep't of Corr., 8:22-cv-1851-MSS-CPT. Judge Mary Scriven dismissed it as untimely.
"Congress proscribes that a state prisoner only has one opportunity for federal habeas review; a second petition will be denied as successive.” Faison v. Secʼy, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 806 F. App'x 938, 938-39 (11th Cir. 2020). Before bringing a successive petition, a prisoner must obtain authorization from the court of appeals. Otherwise, the district court lacks jurisdiction. “A dismissal of a § 2254 petition as untimely constitutes a dismissal with prejudice on the merits for purposes of restricting a second or successive § 2254 petition.” Jeffus v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 759 F. App'x 773, 775 (11th Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, Myers' construed habeas petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as successive. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case.
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (COA). “A [COA] may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335– 36 (2003) (citations omitted). Myers has not made the requisite showing here and may not have a certificate of appealability.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 2, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slack v. McDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004)