Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00890/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kirby Owen Burnett
Plaintiff
Dexter Payne
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

KIRBY OWEN BURNETT PETITIONER 

ADC # 85918 

VS. 4:19-CV-00890-KGB/JTR 

 

DEXTER PAYNE, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections 

to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this 

Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the 

right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Pending before the Court is a § 2254 habeas Petition and Amended Petition 

filed by Petitioner Kirby Owen Burnett (“Burnett”), who is incarcerated at the 

Arkansas Department of Correction’s Ouachita River Unit. Burnett challenges a 

forty-year sentence imposed approximately twenty-three years ago, in 1997, in State 

Case 4:19-cv-00890-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

v. Burnett, Pulaski County Circuit Court Case No. 60CR-97-978 (hereinafter, the 

“state court case”). Doc. 7 at pp. 2, 16; 

 On August 18, 2005, Burnett filed a § 2254 habeas action challenging his 

conviction in the same state court case. See Burnett v. Norris, Eastern District of 

Arkansas Case No. 5:05-cv-00238-JFF. On November 7, 2005, Burnett’s § 2254 

petition was dismissed, with prejudice, because it was filed over five years too late. 

Id. at Doc. 21, p. 7. 

 On December 11, 2019, Burnett filed the § 2254 habeas Petition now pending 

before this Court. Doc. 1. On December 30, 2019, he filed an Amended Petition. 

Doc. 7. While Burnett’s claims are difficult to decipher, all of his claims appear to 

challenge the length of the sentence he is now serving. This appears to be a new 

claim, that he failed to assert in his previous federal habeas action. Before Burnett 

can pursue a “second or successive” habeas action, he must first obtain the required 

authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 After conducting the required initial review of a § 2254 habeas Petition, a 

federal court must summarily deny relief “if it plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. As part 

of this initial review, a federal court is also obligated to decide whether it has subject 

Case 4:19-cv-00890-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 4
3 

matter jurisdiction. See Northport Health Servs. v. Rutherford, 605 F.3d 483, 490 

(8th Cir. 2010) (“federal courts are obligated to consider lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte”). 

 A new claim presented in a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition must 

be dismissed unless it is first authorized by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. 

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.”); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 157 (2007) (absent prior 

authorization, district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a “second or successive” § 

2254 habeas petition). 

Because Burnett failed to obtain the required authorization from the Eighth 

Circuit, before filing this second or successive habeas action, this Court lacks 

jurisdiction over his newly asserted habeas claims. 

III. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. All claims asserted in Petitioner Burnett’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition 

and Amended Petition, Docs. 1 & 7, be DENIED, and this case be DISMISSED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 

Case 4:19-cv-00890-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

 2. A Certificate of Appealability be denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2); 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00890-KGB Document 10 Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 4