Turner v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN LANIER TURNER, ] ] Movant, ] ] v. ] Case No.: 2:25-cv-8016-ACA ] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ] ] Respondent. ]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian Lanier Turner moves to vacate sentence, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). Because this is an impermissibly successive § 2255 motion over which the court lacks jurisdiction, the court WILL DISMISS the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides that a movant may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion without first obtaining an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Absent authorization from the court of appeals, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive motion to vacate sentence. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). In 2020, Mr. Turner was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. United States v. Turner,

No. 18-594, doc. 87 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 14, 2020). The court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment. Id. In 2022, Mr. Turner moved to vacate sentence, under § 2255. Id., doc. 99 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 31, 2022). The court denied that motion in part

as procedurally defaulted and in part on the merits. Id., doc. 100 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2022). That denial “constitute[d] a disposition on the merits and thus renders a subsequent . . . § 2255 motion ‘second or successive’ for purposes of the AEDPA.” Young v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 697 F. App’x 660, 661 (11th Cir. 2017)

(quotation marks omitted).1 Mr. Turner’s current motion seeks to challenge the same sentence his previous motion challenged. (Doc. 106 at 3–5). Accordingly, the current motion is a “second

or successive” § 2255 motion and he must obtain the Eleventh Circuit’s authorization before filing it in this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). The motion contains no indication that Mr. Turner has obtained such authorization. (See doc. 106). Accordingly, the court WILL DISMISS the § 2255 motion

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Although Young is an unpublished opinion, the court finds it persuasive. See McNamara v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055, 1060 (11th Cir. 2022). Because an order dismissing a § 2255 motion as successive is not a “final order in proceeding under section 2255,” a certificate of appealability is not

necessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see Jackson v. United States, 875 F.3d 1089, 1090 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The key inquiry into whether an order is ‘final’ for § 2253 purposes is whether it is an order that disposes of the merits of a habeas

corpus proceeding.”) (quotation marks omitted; alteration accepted). The court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion. DONE and ORDERED this July 21, 2025. fc UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE