SORIA-ZAVALA
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition without prior authorization from the court of appeals.
Petitioner filed a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a state conviction. He had previously filed a federal habeas …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“petition”) challenging a Florida conviction entered in 2012 for lewd and lascivious molestation of a minor (Doc. 1).1 The Court has undertaken the preliminary review mandated by Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and concludes that the petition is subject to summary dismissal, without prejudice. Because Petitioner filed his request for federal habeas relief after the enactment date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the petition is governed by the provisions thereof. See Wilcox v. Singletary, 158 F. 3d 1209, 1210 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 (2000). The AEDPA contains several habeas corpus amendments, one of which established a “gatekeeping” mechanism for the consideration
corpus relief 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). Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in this Court regarding the conviction he challenges in this action. See Soria-Zavala v. Secretary, Department of
Corrections, Case No. 8:18-cv-327-CEH-AEP (M.D.Fla.) (petition denied March1, 2021). The instant petition therefore is a second or successive petition. Petitioner has not shown that he has received authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive habeas petition. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner relief. See Gilreath
v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 273 F. 3d 932, 933 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, under § 2244(b)(3), this case will be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner to seek authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas corpus petition in this Court. Accordingly:
1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
2. The Clerk is directed to send to Petitioner the Eleventh Circuit’s form for second or successive habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), terminate all pending motions, and close this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 15, 2021.
WILLIAM F. ae
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copy to: Petitioner, pro se
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilcox v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 158 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1998)
- Wilcox v. Moore, 531 U.S. 840 (U.S. 2000)
- Gilreath v. The State Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles, 273 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 2001)