Wilson v. Thomas (INMATE 3), 3:17-cv-00242

Petitioner Joseph Michael Wilson is an Alabama state inmate challenging two sets of Tallapoosa County convictions: (1) 2003 convictions (two counts) with a 20-year sentence, and (2) 2001 convictions (six counts) with a 15-year sentence; the 20-year term was ordered consecutive to the 15-year term.
Wilson previously filed separate § 2254 habeas petitions attacking the 2003 and 2001 convictions; both prior petitions were denied and dismissed with prejudice by this Court.
The instant § 2254 petition is Wilson’s second attempt to collaterally attack those same convictions and sentences in federal court.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) requires a prisoner to obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas application in district court.
Wilson provided no Eleventh Circuit authorization for this successive petition; the Magistrate Judge concluded the district court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and recommended dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is a "second or successive" § 2254 application	Wilson seeks to relitigate his 2001 and 2003 convictions in a new § 2254 petition	Respondents assert Wilson already filed and had dismissals on prior § 2254 petitions, so this is successive	Court: Petition is successive because prior § 2254 petitions challenged the same convictions and were dismissed with prejudice
Whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear the successive petition without Eleventh Circuit authorization	Wilson did not present evidence of authorization and proceeded in district court	Respondents argue absence of authorization deprives district court of jurisdiction under § 2244(b)(3)(A)	Court: Dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Wilson failed to obtain required appellate authorization

Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 2001) (district courts lack jurisdiction to grant relief on unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (without appellate authorization, district courts cannot consider successive § 2255/§ 2254 petitions)
Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993) (standard regarding objections to magistrate judge recommendations and waiver by failure to object)
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989) (same point on waiver and review of magistrate recommendations)