Burke v. Warden, Desoto Correctional Institution

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

BRYAN D. BURKE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-232-SPC-KCD

WARDEN SHANE BAKER,

Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Bryan D. Burke’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Burke is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections serving a 30 year sentence for burglary. In 2021, Burke pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida. See United States v. Burke, Case No. 0:21-cr-60144-WPD (Doc. 74, entered Oct. 12, 2021). Burke generally challenges the legality of the federal conviction—though he does not explain why—and asks the Court to either (1) command the warden of DeSoto Correctional Institution to justify Burke’s incarceration or (2) order Burke’s immediate release from state prison and discharge his federal prison sentence. The Court would normally transfer this case to the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida, but that is not necessary here. Burke filed a similar habeas petition in the Fort Lauderdale court. This action is duplicative of the pending Fort Lauderdale petition. The Eleventh Circuit

explained how federal courts treat duplicative civil actions: It is well established that as between federal courts, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation. This doctrine rests on considerations of wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation. Although no precise test has been articulated for making this determination, the general rule is that a suit is duplicative of another suit if the parties, issues and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining whether to stay or dismiss litigation in order to avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in another federal court.

I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1552 (11th Cir. 1986) (cleaned up). The Court will dismiss this action as duplicative. Also, Burke has already filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the Fort Lauderdale court denied. “A second or successive [§ 2255] motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Before filing a second postconviction challenge to his federal sentence, Burke must obtain the Eleventh Circuit’s authorization. If the Eleventh Circuit authorizes a successive § 2255 motion, Burke may file it in the Fort Lauderdale court. To the extent Burke seeks habeas relief under § 2241, dismissal remains appropriate because Burke does not state any claim that could warrant habeas

relief. See Section 2254 Rule 4.1 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY A prisoner seeking relief under § 2255 or § 2241 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his motion. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (COA). “A [COA] may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists

would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller–El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003) (citations omitted). Burke has not made the requisite showing here and may not have a certificate of appealability on any ground of his Motion. Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1 Courts may apply the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases to all habeas petitions. Section 2254 Rule 1(b). 1. Petitioner Bryan D. Burke’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case. 3. Burke is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 24, 2025.

, Lh platralh< 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record