providing that, without an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive habeas petition, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider the petition
How later courts described this case
- providing that, without an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive habeas petition, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider the petition
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BULLOCK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:97-cv-188-ECM
) [WO]
WILLIE JOHNSON, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On February 18, 1997, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On December 22, 1997, the petition for habeas
corpus was denied and this case was dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 30). The Petitioner
did not appeal.
On May 22, 2023, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen this case (doc. 32) asserting
that he was incompetent to stand trial in 1990. He seeks to reopen his habeas petition to
challenge his state convictions for murder and attempted murder.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), “[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). “A motion in the court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be
determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals” and may be granted “only if [the
assigned panel of judges] determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that
the application satisfies the requirements of [28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (b)(2)].” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(B) & (C).
Bullock was convicted in 1990 of murder and attempted murder. Bullock v. State,
586 So. 2d 284 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). Because Bullock seeks to challenge his conviction,
his motion to reopen his case would constitute a successive § 2254 petition subject to the
limitations of § 2244(b). Bullock furnishes no certification from the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals authorizing this court to proceed on his successive petition for habeas corpus
relief. “Because this undertaking [is a successive] habeas corpus petition and because
[Bullock] had no permission from [the Eleventh Circuit] to file a [successive] habeas
petition, . . . the district court lack[s] jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.” Gilreath v.
State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11th Cir. 2001). See Farris v.
United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (providing that, without an order from
the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive habeas petition,
the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider the petition). Consequently, the motion to
reopen case (doc. 32) is due to be denied.
Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, it is
ORDERED that the motion to reopen case (doc. 32) is DENIED.
DONE this 21st day of August, 2023.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE