Townsend v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections ( 2020 )

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida William Alexander Townsend, ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 20-23118-Civ-Scola v. ) ) Mark S. Inch, Respondent. Order Dismissing Successive Habeas Petition This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the Petitioner William Townsend’s § 2254 petition (ECF No. 1) as a successive habeas petition under 28 § 2244(b)(3). 1. Background Townsend, a pro se inmate currently confined at Hamilton Correctional Institution-Annex, has filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) He challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence, entered following a jury trial in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, case number F97-007241. (Id.) Previously, Townsend filed a § 2254 petition in the Southern District of Florida challenging his conviction entered in Miami-Dade County circuit court case no. F97-007241. See Townsend v. Crews, 14-24126-CV-MORENO, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2014). The magistrate judge issued a report addressing the merits of the petition and recommending it be denied as untimely. (Id. at ECF No. 8). The district judge entered an order adopting the report and denying the petition on the merits. (Id. at ECF No. 13). Townsend did not appeal the denial. Townsend has now filed this, his second § 2254 petition. (See ECF No. 1). This petition challenges the same conviction addressed in the prior petition. (Id.) Although the petition is captioned as if it were intended to be filed in Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, Townsend invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as the basis for his petition, and he is seeking relief pursuant to § 2254. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Townsend has not alleged that has applied for leave to file this successive petition from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as required by § 2244(b)(3) (requiring a petitioner to obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the filing of a successive petition). 2. Discussion As explained above, Townsend filed a prior § 2254 petition challenging the same state court conviction challenged here. In this § 2254 petition, he is asserting new claims attacking that same conviction. (See ECF No. 1). In accordance with 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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). “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)(2)].” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B) and (C). Without authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2)- (3); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (district court was “without jurisdiction to entertain” a successive petition where the petitioner did not first obtain authorization); El-Amin v. United States, 172 F. App’x 942, 946 (11th Cir. 2006) (without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive motion). Here, Townsend has not obtained leave from the Eleventh Circuit to file this successive petition, and therefore, the Court must dismiss this successive petition for lack of jurisdiction. 3. Conclusion In sum, the Court dismisses the Petitioner William Townsend’s petition for habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) for lack of jurisdiction for failing to obtain authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The Court does not issue a certificate of appealability. The Court directs the Clerk to close the case and mail a copy of this order to the address listed below. Any pending motions will be denied as moot. Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on August 6, 2020. oben N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge cc: William Alexander Townsend #454325 Hamilton Correctional Institution-Annex Inmate Mail/Parcels 10650 SW 46th Street Jasper, FL 32052 PRO SE