Court Opinion

ID: 9351941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 15:00:23.475453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.746926
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13206    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13206
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       WALTER DRUMMOND,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61823-BB
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13206      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13206

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Walter Drummond, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §
       2554 for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive. On appeal,
       Drummond argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
       petition because he is actually innocent and counsel in his underly-
       ing criminal case was ineffective. We need not reach these issues
       because Drummond’s current petition is successive to a previous
       petition, which was denied as untimely, and Drummond did not
       seek leave from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) to file a suc-
       cessive petition.
               We review de novo whether a habeas corpus petition is suc-
       cessive. Ponton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 891 F.3d 950, 952 (11th
       Cir. 2018). A successive Section 2254 petition requires authoriza-
       tion from this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, a dis-
       trict court lacks jurisdiction to consider an unauthorized successive
       petition. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007).
             When a petitioner seeks to challenge the same judgment
       that was challenged in a previous § 2254 petition, the petition will
       be deemed successive. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320,
       323–24 (2010). Petitions denied as time-barred are considered to
       have been dismissed with prejudice, and subsequent petitions
USCA11 Case: 21-13206     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       21-13206               Opinion of the Court                        3

       therefore qualify as successive. See Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,
       485 F.3d 1351, 1353 (11th Cir. 2007).
               However, we have recognized that “successive” is not “self-
       defining,” and does not necessarily “refer to all habeas applications
       filed second or successively in time.” Stewart v. United States, 646
       F.3d 856, 859 (11th Cir. 2011). Petitions are not successive when
       they present new claims that could not have been raised previ-
       ously. Id. at 859–61 (explaining that claims based on a newly dis-
       coverable factual predicate are successive, but “[i]f . . . the pur-
       ported defect did not arise, or the claim did not ripen, until after
       the conclusion of the previous petition, the later petition based on
       that defect may be non-successive”).
              Drummond’s petition does not fall within the small subset
       of unavailable claims described in Stewart because it did not raise a
       claim that could not have been raised previously. Stewart, 646 F.3d
       at 863. Drummond’s instant petition challenges the same convic-
       tion as his previous petition. As nothing prevented Drummond
       from raising a claim of actual innocence or ineffective assistance of
       counsel in his original petition, the instant petition is successive.
               Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Drum-
       mond’s petition as successive because he had previously filed a
       § 2554 petition; his first petition challenged the same judgment;
       and he did not seek this Court’s permission to file a successive pe-
       tition. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.