Alvin Mead v. Burl Cain, Warden , 438 F. App'x 340 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-30963     Document: 00511578801         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/22/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 22, 2011
    No. 10-30963
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    ALVIN MEAD,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:08-CV-3173
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Alvin Mead, Louisiana prisoner # 310779, appeals the denial of his second
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     application challenging his conviction for possession of cocaine.
    The district court denied the application as time barred but nevertheless granted
    Mead a certificate of appealability on his claim of actual innocence.
    If necessary, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte.
    Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Mead’s second § 2254
    application raised a claim of actual innocence that could have been raised in his
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 10-30963    Document: 00511578801        Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/22/2011
    No. 10-30963
    earlier application; therefore, the second application was successive. See Crone
    v. Cockrell, 
    324 F.3d 833
    , 836 (5th Cir. 2003).
    As a prisoner seeking to file a second or successive § 2254 application,
    Mead was required to apply for leave from this court. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(3)(A).
    His failure to do so rendered his second application unauthorized, thus depriving
    the district court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Key, 
    205 F.3d 773
    , 774 (5th
    Cir. 2000). As such, we lack jurisdiction over this habeas appeal. See 
    id. at 775
    .
    The judgment of the district court is thus VACATED, and the appeal is
    DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-30963

Citation Numbers: 438 F. App'x 340

Judges: Reavley, Smith, Prado

Filed Date: 8/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024