Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170622_0000524.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 11:47:57
Document Index: 510309747

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', 'art, 646', 'art, 549']

NORMAN J. MOORE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim. No. 5:93-CR-0137-SLB-SGC
This case is presently pending before the court on Motion for Relief Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) in Light of U.S. Supreme Court Holding in Dean v. United States, [137 S.Ct. 1170], No. 15-9260 (April 3, 2017), filed by petitioner Norman J. Moore. (Doc. 1; crim. doc. 139.)[1] Moore has previously filed habeas petitions attacking his convictions and sentence in his criminal case. He does not have authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file the instant Motion; therefore, the court is without jurisdiction. Moore's Motion for Relief, (doc. 1; crim. doc. 139), will be denied and this case will be dismissed.
Because Moore had previously filed a § 2255 habeas petition that challenged his conviction and sentence, he is required to have authorization from the Eleventh Circuit before filing this successive Motion for Relief. Although Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), cited by Moore in his Motion for Relief, (doc. 1 at 2-3), may provide a basis for the Eleventh Circuit's grant of authorization to file a second or successive application, [3]this decision does not excuse a petitioner from first seeking such authorization before filing a second or successive habeas application.
Congress did not define the phrase “second or successive motion” used in § 2255(h); however, the Supreme Court has “declined to interpret ‘second or successive' as referring to all § 2254 [or § 2255] applications filed second or successively in time.” Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 944 (2007)(emphasis added); see also Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 860 n.6 (11th Cir. 2011)(“Because of the similarities between the provisions governing second or successive petitions under § 2254 and second or successive motions under § 2255, precedent interpreting one of these parallel restrictions is instructive for interpreting its counterpart.”). The Eleventh Circuit has “recognized the existence of ‘a small subset of unavailable claims that must not be categorized as successive, ' but [Moore's] claim is not one of them.”[4] Ellis v. United States, 593 Fed.Appx. 894, 896-97 (11th Cir. 2014)(citing Stewart, 646 F.3d at 863 (11th Cir. 2011)(petition filed after state-court conviction used to enhance sentence was vacated was not successive)).
“To determine whether a prisoner's petition is second or successive, [the court] must look to whether the petitioner previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same judgment.”[5] Rivera v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., No. 15-15709, 2016 WL 6677629, *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)(citing Insignares, 755 F.3d at 1278). A habeas petitioner, challenging the same judgment as an earlier-filed petition that was decided on the merits, must receive authorization from the Eleventh Circuit before filing his second or successive habeas application for relief. Maxwell v. United States, No. 3:09-CR-38-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 345519, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016)(citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007), Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also Garcia v. United States, No. CR 04-147-CG-N, 2015 WL 5608247, *3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 26, 2015)(“To the extent the present motion is construed as an attack on [defendant's] underlying conviction and sentence, that means he will have ‘twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of [this C]ourt. As a result, under AEDPA, he [i]s required to receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge.'” (quoting Burton, 549 U.S. at 153)), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5602446 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2015).
Because Moore has not been granted authorization to file a second or successive petition, the court is without jurisdiction and his Motion will be denied. An Order denying Moore's Motion for Relief and dismissing this case will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Moore's successive habeas petition without authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Reasonable jurists could not disagree. Therefore, issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.
[1]Citations to documents in the court's record in petitioner's Motion to Vacate appear as “(Doc.).” Citations to documents in the court's record in the criminal proceedings against petitioner, Case No. 5:93-CR-0137-SLB-SGC, appear as “(Crim. Doc.).” Citations to page numbers refer to the page numbers ...