Court Opinion

ID: 9396653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 15:01:08.132695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.649163
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11683    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11683
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JAMON DEMETRIUS JACKSON,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SMITH STATE PRISON,
       GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00128-LMM
USCA11 Case: 22-11683       Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 05/23/2023       Page: 2 of 4

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    22-11683

                             ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jamon Demetrius Jackson, a Georgia 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 pe-
       tition. Because Jackson previously filed a § 2254 petition challeng-
       ing the same judgment and failed to obtain authorization from this
       Court before filing his current petition in the district court, we af-
       firm the dismissal.
                                           I.
               In 2008, Jackson was convicted in Georgia state court of
       murder, assault with a deadly weapon, arson, and other crimes and
       was sentenced to life plus 10 years’ imprisonment. This case repre-
       sents the third time Jackson has filed a habeas petition in federal
       district court challenging the state court’s judgment. In 2016, he
       filed his first § 2254 petition. The district court determined that the
       petition was untimely and dismissed it. Jackson appealed, but we
       concluded that he was not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
               In 2017, Jackson filed a second habeas petition in federal dis-
       trict court, which the district court dismissed as an unauthorized
       second or successive petition. Jackson appealed the dismissal, and
       this Court affirmed.
              In 2021, Jackson filed this petition, his third, in federal district
       court, again challenging the state court judgment. Jackson alleged
USCA11 Case: 22-11683         Document: 22-1        Date Filed: 05/23/2023         Page: 3 of 4

       22-11683                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, among other
       claims of error that he alleged had occurred at trial. Because Jack-
       son failed to obtain authorization from this Court before filing the
       petition, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court
       dismiss the petition. 1 Jackson objected. The district court over-
       ruled the objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommenda-
       tion, and dismissed Jackson’s petition as an unauthorized succes-
       sive petition.
               This is Jackson’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.
               Before a prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judg-
       ment can file a “second or successive” federal habeas petition, he
       must “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order au-
       thorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C.
       § 2244(b)(3)(A). If a prisoner fails to obtain such authorization be-
       fore filing a second or successive petition, the district court must

       1 After the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss this
       petition, Jackson sought authorization in this Court to file a second or succes-
       sive petition. We denied Jackson’s request.
USCA11 Case: 22-11683      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 05/23/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11683

       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
       look to whether the prisoner previously filed a federal habeas peti-
       tion challenging the same judgment. Insignares v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of
       Corr., 755 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2014). When a prisoner previ-
       ously filed a petition challenging the same judgment and that peti-
       tion was dismissed as untimely, a later petition challenging the
       same judgment is considered second or successive. See Patterson,
       849 F.3d at 1325 (treating new petition as second or successive
       when initial petition was dismissed as untimely).
             Jackson’s § 2254 petition in this case qualifies as a second or
       successive habeas petition because he challenged the same judg-
       ment in his first habeas petition and that petition was dismissed as
       untimely. See id. Because Jackson 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.
               It is true that we have recognized a narrow exception to this
       rule that permits a petitioner to file a numerically second § 2254
       petition when it raises a claim that could not have been brought in
       the original habeas petition. See Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d
       856, 860 (11th Cir. 2011). But Jackson’s current petition does not
       fall into this narrow exception because he does not raise any claim
       that could not have been brought earlier. Accordingly, we affirm
       the district court’s dismissal.
              AFFIRMED.