Johnson v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, 805 F.3d 1317

Johnson, a Georgia inmate on death row, filed a §2241 petition on the eve of execution.
Georgia court record shows detailed eyewitness, DNA, and physical evidence linking Johnson to the 1994 murder of Angela Sizemore.
Trial and postconviction histories include a 1998-2000 conviction, direct review up to 2000, and multiple federal habeas proceedings culminating in 2010-2015 proceedings.
In 2015, Johnson’s state habeas petitions sought DNA testing and new trial relief; the state courts denied relief and declined to issue a certificate of probable cause.
Johnson then filed a federal §2241 petition in 2015, arguing six or more subclaims related to sufficiency of evidence, eyewitness reliability, and ineffective assistance.
The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a second/successive petition under AEDPA, which this court reviews de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Johnson’s §2241 petition	Johnson argues §2241 bypasses §2254 restrictions	Georgia contends §2254 rules apply to state prisoners regardless of labeling	District court lacked jurisdiction; §2254 applies and §2244(b) barriers apply
Whether Johnson could file a second or successive federal habeas petition	Johnson seeks leave under §2244(b)(2) exceptions	Petition falls within barred categories; no new rule or eligible new evidence	Application for permission denied; failed §2244(b) requirements
Whether Johnson’s actual innocence claim is cognizable in a second or successive petition	Johnson asserts actual innocence plus constitutional violation	Actual innocence requires a separate constitutional violation and clear and convincing evidence	Not cognizable under §2244(b)(2)(B); no separate violation and no clear and convincing innocence evidence
Whether Johnson is entitled to a stay of execution or COA on appeal	Requests expedited review and relief pending review	No COA merited; no stay warranted given lack of jurisdiction and claims fail	Expedited review granted; COA denied; stay denied

Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2003) (COA required to appeal a §2241 dismissal when state prisoner)
Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (COA and §2254 applicability in §2241 petitions)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (requires showing of debatable claims and procedural ruling for COA)
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782 (11th Cir. 2004) (state prisoner cannot evade §2254 by labeling as §2241)
Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) (§2244(b) bar on second or successive petitions)
United States v. Davis, 557 U.S. 952 (U.S. 2009) (not controlling authority for state-court original petitions; AEDPA still applies)
In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009) (actual innocence requirement in §2244(b)(2)(B) cases)
In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (actual innocence plus requirement for successive petitions)
In re Everett, 797 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2015) (clarifies actual innocence standard for successive petitions)
In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (actual innocence plus standard)