Timothy Hartman v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 689 F. App'x 950

Timothy Hartman, pro se, challenged his 2005 Florida convictions (armed robbery, attempted robbery with a weapon, battery, false imprisonment) in a 2014 § 2254 petition raising trial error and ineffective-assistance claims.
Magistrate judge ordered an amended petition for page-limit compliance; district court denied the petition on the merits and this Court denied a COA in January 2016.
In April 2016 Hartman filed a second § 2254 petition alleging a manifest injustice: his trial counsel colluded with the prosecutor to have Hartman’s codefendant testify against him (conflict/conspiracy theory).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Hartman had not obtained authorization from the court of appeals to file a second or successive § 2254 petition; the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Hartman then applied to this Court for leave to file a second or successive petition; this Court denied that application because he failed to meet § 2244(b)(2)’s requirements. His subsequent appeal of the district-court dismissal was the subject of this per curiam affirmance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Hartman’s April 2016 § 2254 petition (i.e., whether it was second or successive requiring circuit authorization)	Hartman contends his manifest-injustice claim (counsel–prosecutor collusion) is new and not procedurally barred, so the district court may hear it	The State (and court) argue the petition challenges the same 2005 convictions and is second/successive; Hartman failed to obtain court-of-appeals authorization	The court held the petition was second/successive and district court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was required
Whether Hartman should be granted leave to file a second or successive § 2254 petition in the court of appeals	Hartman requested leave to file based on alleged counsel conflict/conspiracy	The court had already considered and denied his application because he failed to satisfy § 2244(b)(2)’s substantive thresholds	The court treated the request as moot for this appeal because the Court of Appeals previously denied his application

Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of whether a habeas petition is second or successive)
Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a second or successive § 2254 petition filed without circuit authorization)