Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00156/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00156-1/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)

---

The records of this court reflect that Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition 1

challenging his convictions for capital murder and attempted murder entered against him by the Circuit

Court for Montgomery County, Alabama, and for which he is serving a sentence of life without the

possibility of parole. See Long v. Bullard, Civil Action No. 2:02-CV-561-MHT (M.D. Ala.).

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B) provides, as amended, that: "[A] motion in the court of appeals for 2

an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined

by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals."

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

DAVID LEE LONG, #204 928 *

Petitioner, *

 v. * 2:07-CV-156-WKW

 (WO) 

GRANT CULLIVER, WARDEN, *

et al., 

*

Respondents.

 _____________________________

ORDER

Petitioner filed the above-captioned case on February 22, 2007. He initiated the

matter by filing a request for counsel prior to the filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. That

request was denied for the reasons set forth in the court’s February 23, 2007 order. (See Doc.

No. 3.) 

Petitioner is advised that this court is not authorized to consider a second or

successive habeas corpus petition without an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

authorizing this court to consider a successive application for habeas corpus relief. See 28 1

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11 2 th

Case 2:07-cv-00156-WKW-WC Document 4 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 2
 Under the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a second or successive petition must be certified as 3

provided in § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain--(1) newly discovered

evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish

by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of

the offense, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

Cir. 2001); Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303, 1305-07 (11 Cir. 1996). Thus, if Petitioner is th 3

seeking once again to challenge convictions previously reviewed by this court in a prior habeas

corpus petition, the court would lack jurisdiction to consider it. (Id.) In light of the foregoing,

it is 

ORDERED that on or before March 12, 2007 Petitioner shall inform the court of the

nature of the action sought to be filed by initiation of this matter and the true nature of the relief

sought. 

Done, this 26 day of February 2007. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00156-WKW-WC Document 4 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2