Frankie Raines v. Okeechobee CI Warden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 3, 2021
• Docket: 20-12087
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 20-12087 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-80665-RAR

FRANKIE RAINES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

OKEECHOBEE CI WARDEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________

(February 3, 2021) USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 2 of 3

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Frankie Raines, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as impermissibly successive.

We review whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was successive de

novo. Patterson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017).

Although a certificate of appealability is generally required to appeal a final order in

a proceeding under § 2254, we have held that the dismissal of a successive habeas

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not constitute a “final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding” for purposes of § 2253(c). Hubbard v. Campbell,

379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Instead, we review that dismissal as a “final

decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See id.

Although we liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, issues that a

pro se litigant has not clearly raised on appeal are deemed abandoned and will not

be addressed. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a

successive § 2254 petition. Bowles v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 935 F.3d 1176,

1180 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom, Bowles v. Inch, 140 S. Ct. 26 (2019).

When an initial habeas petition is adjudicated on the merits, a subsequent petition is

successive. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000).

2 USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 3 of 3

Because Raines did not argue, nor even mention, the issue of whether the

petition was improperly dismissed as successive in his brief, he has abandoned the

issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED.