[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 10295

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
PAUL RUBIN WHITE,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cv

- 00153

- AW

- GRJ

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10295 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 1 of 42 Opinion of the Court 22

- 10295

Before J ILL P RYOR , B RANCH , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Paul Rubin White
, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
Because White previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging the same judgment that was dismissed as untimely and failed to obtain authorization from this Court before filing his current petition in district court, we affirm the dismissal.

I

. This case represents the th ird time White has filed a habeas petition in federal court challenging his conviction for two counts of sexual battery of a child and one count of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. First, in 2009, he filed a habeas petition in federal court challeng ing his conviction. The district court determined that his petition was untimely and dismissed it with prejudice. In 2020, White filed a second habeas petition in federal court , which the district court also dismissed

. In 2021, White filed this petition i n federal district court, again challenging his conviction. Because White failed to obtain prior authorization from this Court before filing his petition, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss the petition. White objected to the recommendation. After considering the objection, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s USCA11 Case: 22-10295 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 2 of 422

- 10295 Opinion of the Court 3
recommendation and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. This is White’s appeal.

II.

“ We review de novo whether a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is second or successive. ” Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc)

. III. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104

- 132, 110 Stat. 1214, re quires that before a prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment can file a “second or successive” federal habeas petition under § 2254,he must “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider th e application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (A) . If a prisoner fails to obtain such prior authorization before filing a second or successive application, the district court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Farris v. United States , 333 F.3d 121 1, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)

. To determine whether a petition is second or successive, we must look to whether the prisoner previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same judgment. Insignares v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr. , 755 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2014). When a habeas petition is dismissed as untimely, any later petition challenging the same judgment is considered second or successive. See Patterson , 849 F.3d at 1325 (treating new petition as secondary or successive when initial petition was dismissed as untimely). USCA11 Case: 22-10295 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 3 of 44 Opinion of the Court 22

- 10295
White’s § 2254 petition in this case qualifies as a second or successive habeas petition because he previously challenged the same conviction in his first habeas petition , and that petition was dismissed as untimely

. See id. Because White failed to obtain leave from our Court before filing th e petition in this case , the district court properly dismissed it

. See Farris , 333 F.3d at 1216.
White nevertheless says that the district court erred in dismissing his petition becaus e a district court may review a second or successive petition when a prisoner brings an actual innocence claim. Not so. W e have held that AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive petitions apply even when a prisoner raises an actual innocence claim. Se e Bowles v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 935 F.3d 1176, 1182 (11th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 22-10295 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 4 of 4