Lester Lynch, Jr. v. Beth Cabell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 7, 2022
• Docket: 22-6341
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6341 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6341

LESTER B. LYNCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BETH CABELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00221-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: December 7, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester B. Lynch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6341 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Lester Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive § 2254

petition must file a motion with the court of appeals requesting an order authorizing the

district court to consider such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If a petitioner

does not receive authorization to file a second or successive petition, the district court must

dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007); see

also Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 338-39 (2010) (noting that a district court should

dismiss without prejudice, not deny on the merits, an unauthorized second or successive

application challenging the movant’s sentence).

Lynch previously filed a § 2254 petition, which was addressed on the merits.

Lynch v. Watson, No. 1:08-cv-00929-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2009); see Harvey v.

Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 380 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating that “a dismissal for procedural default

is a dismissal on the merits”), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.

521 (2011). And, although he sought authorization from this court to file a second or

successive petition in the district court, we denied authorization. In re Lynch, No. 21-117

(4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021) (unpublished order). Because Lynch had not received

authorization to file a second or successive petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to

rule on Lynch’s petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 153. We therefore vacate the district

court’s order dismissing Lynch’s petition and remand with instructions for the district court

to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. Lynch’s motion for appointment of counsel

is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6341 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED