Court Opinion

ID: 9964695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:01:40.440947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.287194
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14168    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 04/30/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14168
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JEROME (NMN) ALLEN,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-01623-CEM-DCI
USCA11 Case: 22-14168         Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 04/30/2024         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-14168

                               ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jerome Allen, a Florida state prisoner proceeding with coun-
       sel, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pe-
       tition for lack of jurisdiction as untimely and successive. Instead of
       addressing the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, Al-
       len’s retained counsel argues only the merits and underlying con-
       stitutional claims in his case, failing to address the jurisdictional is-
       sue. 1
              Issues not raised on appeal are deemed forfeited. United
       States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872–73 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
       An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not
       “plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
       Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omit-
       ted). Here, Allen has forfeited any claim that the district court
       erred in dismissing his Section 2254 petition as successive, as he
       does not raise any arguments on appeal challenging this determi-
       nation. See id.
              A barred attorney retained by a prisoner seeking relief from
       a state court judgment is expected to understand and adhere to

       1 Although not required to file a reply brief, Allen’s counsel did not do so de-

       spite that being an opportunity to address the specific jurisdictional arguments
       that Florida brought up in its response brief.
USCA11 Case: 22-14168        Document: 44-1         Date Filed: 04/30/2024        Page: 3 of 3

       22-14168                  Opinion of the Court                               3

       state 2 and federal habeas requirements. This court is troubled by
       the failure of Allen’s counsel to do so. As explained by the district
       court, Allen’s 2019 resentencing was imposed nunc pro tunc, so his
       amended sentence was not a “new judgment” for the purposes of
       Section 2244. See Osbourne v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1261,
       1266 (11th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, his 2021 Section 2254 petition
       was successive to his 1998 and 2001 Section 2254 petitions concern-
       ing the same judgment. And as Allen’s counsel should know, a pe-
       titioner must receive authorization from this court prior to filing a
       successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Allen’s
       counsel filed this successive habeas petition without authorization,
       thus requiring the district court to dismiss it.
              AFFIRMED.

       2 Allen may have filed a successive motion for postconviction relief in Florida

       state court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(h).