[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10295

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, 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 third 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 challenging 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 in 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 4
22-10295 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, requires 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 the 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 1211, 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 4
4 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 the 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 because a district court may review a second 

or successive petition when a prisoner brings an actual innocence 

claim. Not so. We have held that AEDPA’s restrictions on second 

or successive petitions apply even when a prisoner raises an actual 

innocence claim. See 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