CLARK v. MCLAUGHLIN, 1:17-cv-04267

Petitioner Curtis Clark, a pro se state prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his November 1, 2000 Fulton County convictions.
Clark previously filed and lost an earlier § 2254 petition in this district challenging the same convictions.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Final Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the instant petition as an impermissible successive petition under AEDPA.
Petitioner filed objections to the R&R asserting the merits of his constitutional claims but did not show he obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive petition.
The district court reviewed the R&R and objections, found no merit in Clark’s objections, adopted the R&R, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as successive, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is a successive § 2254 application	Clark argues his claims could not have been raised previously and reasserts merits	Respondent (via R&R) argues petition is successive and Clark did not obtain appellate authorization	Court held the petition is successive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Clark did not obtain Eleventh Circuit authorization
Whether the district court may hear the petition without authorization	Clark implies the merits warrant review despite succession	AEDPA and precedent require court-of-appeals authorization before district court may consider a second or successive petition	Court held it lacked jurisdiction under AEDPA and dismissed the petition
Whether objections to the R&R preserved new arguments	Clark filed objections reasserting merits	Respondent contends objections did not show compliance with AEDPA gatekeeping	Court exercised discretion, found objections insufficient and adopted the R&R
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Clark did not establish a debatable constitutional claim given procedural defect	Respondent argues COA should be denied because dismissal is jurisdictional and mandated	Court denied a certificate of appealability

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (district court lacked jurisdiction over second habeas petition where petitioner did not obtain court-of-appeals authorization)
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009) (requirements for specific objections to magistrate judge reports)
Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1988) (frivolous or general objections need not be considered)
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion to consider arguments not raised before the magistrate judge)