Court Opinion

ID: 9956240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 16:01:04.69462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.587142
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10083   Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 24-10083
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      KENNEDY MINNIFIELD,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
      versus
      WARDEN, LIMESTONE CF,
      ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00986-AMM-JHE
USCA11 Case: 24-10083      Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024      Page: 2 of 3

      2                       Opinion of the Court                  24-10083

                           ____________________

      Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH,
      Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             Kennedy Minnifield, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the
      dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.
      § 2254. The district court dismissed Minnifield’s petition for lack of
      jurisdiction because he failed to obtain leave to file a second or suc-
      cessive application. Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). We affirm.
              We review de novo the dismissal of a petition for a writ of
      habeas corpus as “second or successive.” Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t
      of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A “state pris-
      oner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courts . . . [in a
      second or subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus must]
      comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).”
      Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007). Section 2244(b) requires
      that, “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this
      section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 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).
              The district court correctly dismissed as successive Minni-
      field’s petition, which collaterally attacked the same convictions he
      challenged in his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 1997.
      Minnifield failed to obtain from this Court leave to file a successive
      petition. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Because Minnifield “neither
USCA11 Case: 24-10083      Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 04/01/2024      Page: 3 of 3

      24-10083               Opinion of the Court                          3

      sought nor received authorization from [us] before filing . . . [his]
      ‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, . . . the Dis-
      trict Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.” Burton, 549
      U.S. at 157.
             We AFFIRM the dismissal of Minnifield’s petition.