[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10129

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ROBERT MCKINNON, III, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, HOLMES CI,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00629-SPC-PRL

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10129 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10129

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert McKinnon, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, McKinnon argues that the district court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction and that special circumstances concerning the violation 

of his due process rights demand immediate federal court review.

Because the district court was correct in determining that it lacked 

jurisdiction, we affirm.

I.

Questions about the district court’s jurisdiction are reviewed 

de novo. United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998). 

We are obligated to sua sponte inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction whenever it may be lacking, regardless of whether the district 

court addressed specific jurisdictional issues. See Blue Cross & Blue 

Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347, 1351 (11th Cir. 1998). And a

pro se litigant’s pleadings are afforded liberal construction. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).

II.

Under Section 2241, a state prisoner may bring a petition for 

habeas relief either in the federal district where he is in custody or 

within which “the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). A habeas petitioner is not “in 

USCA11 Case: 24-10129 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024 Page: 2 of 4
24-10129 Opinion of the Court 3

custody” under a conviction after the sentence imposed has fully 

expired, even if the prior conviction may be used to enhance the 

sentence imposed in subsequent convictions. Maleng v. Cook, 490 

U.S. 488, 492 (1989).

A state prisoner seeking to file a successive habeas corpus 

petition must move the court of appeals for an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Absent such authorization, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas corpus petition. Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 

F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Prisoners who seek to collaterally 

attack their convictions must satisfy the authorization requirement, no matter how their petition is captioned. See Antonelli v. 

Warden, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2008).

The district court was correct in determining that it lacked 

jurisdiction to review McKinnon’s petition. Although his petition 

discusses convictions from Citrus County and Marion County, 

McKinnon is currently serving a term of incarceration in Washington County for convictions arising out of Alachua County, both of 

which are in the Northern District of Florida. Because McKinnon 

was convicted and incarcerated in counties outside the Middle District, the district court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition. See 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

The district court also lacked jurisdiction because the petition—despite being captioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241—was an unauthorized successive collateral attack on McKinnon’s convictions. 

See Antonelli, 542 F.3d at 1351; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 138 

USCA11 Case: 24-10129 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10129

F.3d at 1351. McKinnon has filed multiple habeas petitions in both 

the Northern and Middle Districts attacking his Alachua County 

convictions without obtaining an order from our court authorizing 

the district court to consider it. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see, e.g.,

McKinnon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 1:16-CV-256-MP-GRJ, 2016 

WL 6542874 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016), report and recommendation 

adopted sub nom. McKinnon v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 1:16-CV00256-MP-GRJ, 2016 WL 6542848 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2016) (explaining that McKinnon filed a Section 2254 petition in the Middle District attacking the Alachua County convictions, which was transferred to the Northern District and subsequently denied). 

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed McKinnon’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

III.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10129 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2024 Page: 4 of 4