Robert L. Clark v. Gregory McLauglin , 714 F. App'x 978 ( 2018 )

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13065
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00060-TCB
ROBERT L. CLARK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GREGORY MCLAUGLIN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 6, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Robert Clark, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the denial of what we take as a
motion for reconsideration. The district court determined that the section 2254
petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition. No reversible error has
been shown; we affirm.
In 2004, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 16
years’ imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Clark
v. State, 629 S.E.2d 103, 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). Petitioner later filed a state
habeas petition, which was denied by the state court in October 2010. In 2012, the
Georgia Supreme Court then denied Petitioner a certificate of probable cause to
appeal the denial. In 2016, Petitioner filed the section 2254 petition at issue in this
appeal.
The district court committed no error in determining that Petitioner’s 2016
section 2254 petition was second or successive. The record demonstrates that
Petitioner filed an earlier section 2254 petition in 2012 that was denied on the
merits. Because Petitioner has failed to obtain authorization from this Court to file
a second or successive petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider
Petitioner’s 2016 petition. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th
2
Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 3 of 3
Cir. 2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider
a second or successive petition.”).
Because we conclude that Petitioner’s 2016 petition was dismissed properly
as second or successive, the district court abused no discretion in denying
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover -- to the extent Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration could be construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) -- Petitioner failed to identify either newly discovered evidence or a manifest
error of law or fact that would warrant relief. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335,
1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3