Joseph Wilson v. Warden, Attorney General, State of Alabama
706 F. App'x 628
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph Wilson, an Alabama state prisoner, challenged 2001 and 2003 state convictions for theft by deception via multiple 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions in federal court.
- A 2004 § 2254 petition attacking the 2001 convictions was dismissed as time-barred; Wilson did not appeal that dismissal.
- Wilson separately filed a § 2254 petition challenging the 2003 convictions; the district court dismissed it with prejudice, and appellate COA requests were denied.
- In April 2017 Wilson filed the § 2254 petition at issue, again challenging both the 2001 and 2003 convictions.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because Wilson had not obtained prior authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive petition; the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed without prejudice.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the 2017 petition was second or successive and the district court lacked jurisdiction because Wilson had not received court authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2017 § 2254 petition is a "second or successive" petition requiring Eleventh Circuit authorization | Wilson challenged his 2001 and 2003 convictions again; implied that district court could hear it | Prior § 2254 petitions concerning the same convictions were dismissed (including with prejudice or as time-barred) so authorization was required | The 2017 petition is second or successive; Wilson needed circuit authorization and failed to obtain it, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is proper |
| Whether a dismissal as time-barred counts as dismissal "with prejudice" for purposes of § 2244(b)(3)(A) | Wilson implicitly argued prior dismissals did not bar filing | Circuit precedent treats untimely dismissals as with prejudice for successive-petition purposes | A prior petition dismissed as untimely is considered with prejudice; it renders later petitions successive and subject to § 2244(b)(3)(A) |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) was required to appeal the jurisdictional dismissal | Wilson pursued the appeal pro se | The government noted COA is not required to appeal a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | COA not required for this appeal of a jurisdictional dismissal |
| Whether Wilson had obtained permission from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive petition | Wilson filed an application to the Eleventh Circuit | The Eleventh Circuit had denied leave under § 2244(b)(2) | Wilson had not obtained authorization; the Eleventh Circuit later denied his application, confirming lack of authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for whether a habeas petition is second or successive)
- Rozzelle v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 672 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of district court dismissal of § 2254 petition)
- Tompkins v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 557 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (district courts lack jurisdiction to consider successive § 2254 petitions filed without circuit authorization)
- Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (a subsequent § 2254 petition is second or successive if the first was denied or dismissed with prejudice)
- Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (a petition dismissed as untimely is treated as dismissed with prejudice for § 2244 purposes)
- Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2004) (a COA is not required to appeal a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)