FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 45 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 20 08 -WPD TIMOTHY G. HENDERSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, vers us SECRETARY, Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Tim ot hy Hend ers on , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the

di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s “ am en de d p et it io n” forrel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, wh ic h h e subm it te d a lm os t fo urm on th s af te r th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is or ig in al § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t Hen de rs on ’s am en de d p et it io n was im pe rm is si bl y

su cces si ve . Hend ers on arg ue s on ap pe al th e m eri ts of t he sev encla im s h e rai se d i n h is am en de d § 22 54 pe ti ti on . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us de no vo , whi le th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewedon ly for cl ear erro r. Dig

sb y v. McNe il , 62 7 F .3d82 3, 8 30 (20 10 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct 2 93 6 (2 01 1) . W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on for la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Se e Ta yl or v. Uni te d Sta tes , 39 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (rev ie win g de no vo di sm is sa l o f al ie n’s h ab eas pe ti ti onforlac k o f juri sd ic ti on ). W e h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof juri sd ic ti on . Se e Hub ba rd v. Ca mpb el l , 37 9 F .3d12 45 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). An ap pl ic at io n fo r writof h ab eas m ay be am en de d o r supp le m en te d a s pr ov id edinth e ru le s o f pr oc edur e ap pl ic ab le to civ il act io ns . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 2. Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 5 p ro vi de s fo r ci rcu m st an ces inwhi cha pl ead in g m ay be am en de d o r supp le m en te d. Ru le 15 (b ) ad dr es se s amendm en ts du rin g a nd aft er tria l, an d, the refo re, d oe s n otap pl y he re s in ce the re was no tri al . Se e 2Fed .R.Ci v.P . 15 (b ). Ru le 15 (a) g ov ern s amendm en ts of p le ad in gs be fo re

jud gm en t i s en te red . Ja co bs v. Temp ur -Pedic Int ’l, In c. , 62 6 F .3d13 27 , 13 44 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Rul e 1 5( a) d oe s n otap pl y aft er the di st ric t co urt d is m is se s the pe ti ti on an d e nt ers th e fi na l ju dg m en t. Id. A new p et it io n c an no t b e co ns id eredan am en dm en t t o a n e arl ie r pe ti ti on if t he earl ie r pe ti ti on ha s b eende ni edan d t he cas e cl os ed . Se e Jo nes v. Un it ed Stat es , 30 4 F .3d10 35 , 10 43 n.1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . The di st ric t co urt d en ie d Hen de rs on ’s ori gi na l p et it io n a ndclo se d t he cas e. Thu s, Hen de rs on ’s am en de d p et it io n c an no t b e co ns id eredanam en dm en t t o the ori gi na l pe ti ti on un de r Ru le 15 .

“ Po st -jud gm en t, the [pe ti ti on er] m ay see k l eav e to am en d i f he is gra nt ed rel ie f un de r [Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e] 59 (e) o r Ru le 60 (b )(6 ).” Ja co bs , 62 6 F .3dat 1 34 4- 45 . Mot io ns to alt er o r am en d ajud gm en t u nd er Ru le 59 (e) a re gr an te d o nl y

if the re i s n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce o r m an ife sterro rs of l aw or fact . Id. at 1 34 4. A Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n c an no t b e u se d t o ra is e arg um en ts or pr es en t ev id en ce tha t co ul d h av e b eenrai se d b efo re jud gm en t was en te red . Id. Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) pro vi de s g ro un ds forrel ie f fro m a fi na l jud gm en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g. A Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fr om th e d en ia l o f a § 22 54 pe ti ti on th atsee ks to ad d ane w gro un d fo r rel ie f is co ns id ereda su cces si ve habe as

3pe ti ti on an d t reat edacco rd in gl y . Gon za le z v. C ro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 5 24 , 53 0- 32 , 12 5 S.Ct . 26 41 , 26 47 -4 8, 1 62 L.Ed.2d48 0 (2 00 5) . Inhi s amend edpe ti ti on , Hend ers on so ug htne w gro un ds forrel ie f. Nothi ng in th e rec or ds su gg es ts , andHend ers on do es no t ar gu e, th atth e n ew cl ai m s i n h is am en de d p et it io n c ou ldno t h av e b eenrai se d i n h is ori gi na l p et it io n. Th eref or e, he is no t due rel ie f un de r Ru le 59 (e). Se e Ja co bs , 62 6 F .3dat 1 34 4. Ad di ti on al ly, be cau se Hend ers on so ug htne w gro un d fo r rel ie f in hi s amend edpe ti ti on , th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atth e am en de d p et it io n was a su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . Se e Gon za le z , 54 5 U.S. at53 0- 32 , 12 5 S .Ct. at26 47 -4 8. Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b ), a st at e p ris on er wh o wi sh es to fil e a “ se co ndor su cces si ve habe as co rp us ap pl ic at io n” is requi redto m ov e th e co urt o f ap pe al s fo r anord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r su chanap pl ic at io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(A). If a p et it io ne r ha s n otob ta in edanord er au th or iz in g t he di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 4 p et it io n, the di st ric t co urt m us t di sm is s the pe ti ti on for

lac k o f juri sd ic ti on . To mpkin s v. Sec’y, Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 55 7 F .3d12 57 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Si nc e Hen de rs on ’s am en de d p et it io n was pro pe rly con st ru edas asu cces si ve pe ti ti on an d Hen de rs on ha d n otob ta in edanord er au th or iz in g t he co urt t o c on si de r a se co nd§ 2 25 4 p et it io n, the di st ric t co urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the pe ti ti on . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e am en de d 4pe ti ti on . Se e Hub ba rd , 37 9 F .3dat 1 24 6- 47 (affi rm in g the di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on

to di sm is s an am en de d h ab eas pe ti ti on , fil edsev eral y ears aft er the ori gi na l pe ti ti on ha d b eende ni ed , bec au se th e p et it io ne r fai le d t o o bt ai n l eav e to fil e a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on , andco ns eque nt ly, th e co urt d idno t h av e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ). Furth erm or e, be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on to he ar the m eri ts of t he sev encla im s Hen de rs on rai se d i n h is am en de d p et it io n, we n eedno t ad dr es s the m eri ts of the cla im s h e rai se d i n h is ap pe al bri ef. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

5