Nathaniel Harris v. Warden
688 F. App'x 738
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Harris, a Georgia prisoner convicted of murder in 1992 and sentenced to life, previously exhausted state appeals.
- Harris filed a § 2254 habeas petition in 2010, which the district court dismissed as untimely.
- He filed a second § 2254 petition in 2013, which the district court dismissed as second or successive.
- In 2016 Harris filed the § 2254 petition at issue, challenging the same 1992 judgment of conviction.
- Harris had not obtained prior authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive habeas petition before filing the 2016 petition.
- The district court dismissed the 2016 petition for lack of jurisdiction as an impermissible second or successive petition; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 § 2254 petition is "second or successive" under AEDPA | Harris contends the 2016 petition raises new claims and should be considered despite prior petitions | State argues the 2016 petition challenges the same judgment and is therefore second or successive regardless of newness of claims | The petition is second or successive because it attacks the same judgment; claim novelty does not avoid the bar |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear the 2016 petition absent court of appeals authorization | Harris implies district court can consider the petition without prior appellate authorization | State asserts AEDPA requires Eleventh Circuit authorization before filing a successive petition; absent that, district court lacks jurisdiction | District court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper |
| Whether any procedural exceptions (e.g., newly discovered evidence) justify appellate leave | Harris attempted to show new grounds or evidence to obtain leave after dismissal | State maintains Harris did not demonstrate entitlement to leave based on newly discovered evidence | Harris failed to obtain Eleventh Circuit authorization; his subsequent applications for leave were denied |
| Whether appellate review should consider Harris’s Rule 59(e) arguments | Harris raised challenges to denial of his Rule 59(e) motions on appeal | State objects that those arguments are outside the scope given denial of a COA on that issue | Court declined to consider Rule 59(e) arguments as beyond the scope of this appeal |
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)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions filed without appellate authorization)
- Insignares v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) (determining successive nature by reference to the judgment challenged; successive bar is not claim-specific)
- Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1998) (limitations on appellate consideration when certificate of appealability is denied)