Kennedy Minnifield v. Limestone CF Warden

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10083

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KENNEDY MINNIFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WARDEN, LIMESTONE CF, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00986-AMM-JHE

2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10083

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Kennedy Minnifield, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed Minnifield’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to obtain leave to file a second or successive application. Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). We affirm.

We review de novo the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as “second or successive.” Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A “state prisoner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courts . . . [in a second or subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus must] comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007). Section 2244(b) requires that, “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

The district court correctly dismissed as successive Minnifield ’s petition, which collaterally attacked the same convictions he challenged in his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 1997. Minnifield failed to obtain from this Court leave to file a successive petition. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Because Minnifield “neither

3

24-10083 Opinion of the Court 3

sought nor received authorization from [us] before filing . . . [his] ‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, . . . the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.” Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Minnifield’s petition.