1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-22635-CV-MARTINEZ 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID 

MARIO DYRELL GODHIGH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

LAKE CORRECTIONAL, 

 Respondent. 

REPORT RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN 

AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

 Petitioner has filed a successive pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he has apparently included a civil rights claim. [ECF No. 

1, 5]. Petitioner primarily challenges his convictions for burglary and theft in Case 

No. F14-023894, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County. He also 

conclusorily alleges that he is in “imminent danger” because he is housed with life 

inmates and “could get hurt” and, therefore, seeks “emergency release” to “do the 

rest of [his] time at home.” [Id. at 5]. 

 As discussed below, the Petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

as successive. Furthermore, to the extent petitioner raises a civil rights claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, it should be dismissed as improper in a § 2254 action and because 

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 1 of 6
2

Petitioner has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has failed to pay the 

required filing fee. 

I. Background 

 Petitioner previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging said state conviction 

that was dismissed on the merits. Order, Godhigh v. State of Florida, Case No. 17-

22236-CV-ALTONAGA (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2018), ECF No. 27. A second § 2254 

petition attacking the same conviction was dismissed as successive. Order Adopting 

Report of Magistrate Judge, Godhigh v. State of Florida, Case No. 18-24562-CVCOOKE (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2019), ECF No. 8.1

 

 Here, Petitioner asserts conclusory constitutional challenges to the same state 

conviction. [ECF No. 1 at 1, 7-8, 10-11, 14]. He also makes conclusory allegations 

that he is in imminent danger of being assaulted by the life inmates with whom he is 

housed and seeks release on that basis. [Id. at 5]. 

II. Discussion 

 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that, “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. . . , the judge 

must dismiss the petition . . . .” Consistently, the Supreme Court has stated that 

“[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that 

1 The undersigned takes judicial notice of these records. Cash Inn of Dade, Inc. v. Metro. Dade 

Cnty., 938 F.2d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 1991) (“A district court may take judicial notice of public 

records within its files relating to the particular case before it . . . .” (citation omitted)).  

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 2 of 6
3

appears legally insufficient on its face[.]” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 

(1994) (citing R. 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases). In reviewing a petition under 

Rule 4, courts must construe it liberally. Enriquez v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 227 F. 

App’x 836, 837 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520 (1972)). 

 “Before a second or successive [§ 2254 petition] is filed in the district court, 

the [petitioner] shall 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).“A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider a second or successive [petition] shall be determined by a 

three-judge panel of the court of appeals[,]” and may be granted “only if [the court 

of appeals] determines that the [petition] makes a prima facie showing that the 

application satisfies the requirements of [28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)].” Id. § 

2244(b)(3)(B)-(C). Under § 2244(b), without authorization from the appropriate 

court of appeals, a “[d]istrict [c]ourt [is] without jurisdiction to entertain” a “‘second 

or successive’ petition challenging [the inmate’s] custody[.]” Burton v. Stewart, 549 

U.S. 147, 157 (2007). 

 However, “the phrase ‘second or successive’ is not self-defining and does not 

refer to all habeas applications filed second or successively in time.” Stewart v. 

United States, 646 F.3d 856, 859 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). For instance, 

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 3 of 6
4

“second or successive status only attaches to a judgment on the merits.” Boyd v. 

United States, 754 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 

 Here, petitioner’s previous § 2254 petition was dismissed on the merits and 

he has not obtained the necessary authorization from the Eleventh Circuit. 

Furthermore, he attacks the same conviction that he attacked in his prior § 2254 

petition. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this Petition and it should be 

dismissed.2 3

 Petitioner improperly brought his apparent § 1983 claim in this § 2254 

proceeding. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional 

claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the 

inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of th[e] core [of habeas 

corpus] and may be brought pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”). Alternatively, 

this claim should be dismissed under § 1915(g) because petitioner, a serial litigator, 

is a “three striker” who must pay a filing fee when filing a civil rights claim and has 

2

 The Court will provide Petitioner with a form to apply for such authorization. However, the 

instant § 2254 Petition clearly appears to be untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Thus, neither a 

direct transfer to the Eleventh Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 nor a stay is proper. See Guenther 

v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 1999). 

3

 Because the court “lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction to consider the [instant] successive petition, 

[the court may] not issue a [certificate of appealability].” See Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 

1295 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Yet no certificate of appealability “is required to appeal 

the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an unauthorized successive habeas petition.” Caison v. 

Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 766 F. App’x 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing Hubbard v. 

Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2004)). 

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 4 of 6
5

failed to do so. See, e.g., Godhigh v. Apalachee CI, No. 5:18-CV-214-MCR-GRJ, 

2018 WL 5046097, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2018), report and recommendation 

adopted sub nom. Godhigh v. Barton, No. 5:18-CV-214-MCR-GRJ, 2018 WL 

5045209 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018); see also Skillern v. Paul, 202 F. App’x 343, 344 

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (vague and conclusory allegations of being in 

imminent danger “do not satisfy the dictates of § 1915(g)”). 

III. Recommendations

 As discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition [ECF No. 1] 

be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as successive and that the case be CLOSED. 

It is further recommended that his apparent § 1983 claim be DISMISSED as 

improperly brought in this § 2254 action and/or pursuant to § 1915(g). 

 Objections to this report may be filed with the district judge within fourteen 

days of receipt of a copy of the report. Failure to file timely objections shall bar 

petitioner from a de novo determination by the district judge of an issue covered in 

this report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal factual findings 

accepted or adopted by the district judge except upon grounds of plain error or 

manifest injustice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

148-53 (1985). 

SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 5 of 6
6

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

cc: Mario Dyrell Godhigh 

M28779 

Lake Correctional Institution 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

19225 US Highway 27 

Clermont, FL 34715 

PRO SE 

Noticing 2254 SAG Miami-Dade/Monroe 

Email: CrimAppMIA@MyFloridaLegal.com 

Case 1:20-cv-22635-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 6 of 6