Johnson v. Jones (INMATE 3), 1:15-cv-00707

Johnson, a state inmate, filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 22, 2015, challenging his 2001 Dale County convictions for first degree sodomy, attempted rape in the first degree, and third degree assault, with concurrent sentences totaling 30, 20, and 1 years respectively.
Johnson previously challenged the same convictions in a 2009 habeas petition (Johnson v. Giles, et al.), which was denied as untimely under § 2244(d) and dismissed with prejudice after final judgment on October 19, 2011.
The present petition is treated as a second or successive § 2254 petition because it challenges the same convictions and sentence and was filed without the Eleventh Circuit’s authorization.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)-(C), a successive petition requires an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider it, issued by a three-judge panel.
This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a successive petition without such authorization, and the petition should be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is a second or successive §2254 petition	Johnson argues for relief on the merits of his claims.	Walker argues no authority to proceed without Eleventh Circuit authorization.	Petition is second/successive; court lacks jurisdiction without authorization.
Whether Johnson obtained the required Eleventh Circuit authorization to file a successive petition	Johnson contends the petition should be allowed due to due process considerations.	Johnson did not obtain permission from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive petition.	No Eleventh Circuit authorization present; cannot entertain the petition.
Effect of prior untimeliness disposition on successive petitions	Untimeliness in the prior petition does not bar new, properly authorized claims.	Untimeliness in the prior action reinforces the need for authorization and bars successive relief absent permission.	Prior untimeliness adjudication does not authorize this petition; lack of permission controls.

Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (untimeliness adjudication can support treating later petitions as successive)
Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2003) (prior adjudications influence successive petition considerations)
Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 273 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 2001) (lack of permission to file successive petition; jurisdictional bar)