Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_05-cv-02227/USCOURTS-alnd-4_05-cv-02227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

DORSIE NORTHARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-HS-2227-M

 )

LAPOSEY JONES, Warden; ATTORNEY )

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

On October 27, 2005, Dorsie Northard filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 1984, he was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County of capital

murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Northard has filed six previous federal

habeas corpus petitions challenging the same conviction. (See Court’s Exhibit A, CV95-B-3133-M,

Report and Recommendation, Final Judgment, and Eleventh Circuit’s Denial of Application for Leave

to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)). 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:

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.

Northard failed to obtain authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or

successive habeas corpus application prior to filing this action. 

In Hill v. Harper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1203 (1997) the Court th

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that where the petitioner had not applied to it for permission to

FILED

 2005 Nov-04 PM 01:54

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:05-cv-02227-VEH-PWG Document 4 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 3
2

file a second habeas petition the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to

consider petitioner’s request for relief.

This action is due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A separate Final Judgment consistent

with this Memorandum of Opinion will be entered simultaneously herewith.

As to the foregoing it is SO ORDERED this the 4th day of November, 2005.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02227-VEH-PWG Document 4 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:05-cv-02227-VEH-PWG Document 4 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 3