Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cargill v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

August 11, 2017

HERMAN DEWAYNE CARGILL, III, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim. Case No. 2:12-CR-0030-SLB-JEO

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case is presently pending before the court on Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Motion to Vacate], filed by petitioner Herman Dewayne Cargill, III. (Doc. 1; crim. doc. 33.)[1] Cargill has previously filed a § 2255 Motion to Vacate attacking his conviction and sentence; he does not have authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file the instant Motion to Vacate. Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction. Cargill's Motion for Relief, (doc. 1; crim. doc. 33), will be denied and this case will be dismissed.

         Section 2244(a) states, “No . . . district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in section 2255.”[2] 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). “Before 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.” Id. (b)(3)(A). “Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.” United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)). “[Section] § 2244(a) applies to any petition for habeas relief attacking the legality of the same detention, and § 2244(b)(3) requires that the petitioner obtain permission from the court of appeals before filing any second or successive petition attacking the same detention.” McKinney v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 870 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1354 (M.D. Fla. 2012)(citing Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.2005)), aff'd, 562 Fed.Appx. 917 (11th Cir. 2014).

         Because Cargill has previously filed a § 2255 habeas petition that challenged his conviction and sentence, see Cargill v. United States, Case No. 2:13-CV-8032 (N.D. Ala.), he must have authorization from the Eleventh Circuit before filing another § 2255 Motion to Vacate. Although Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), cited by Cargill in his Motion to Vacate, (doc. 1 at 4; crim. doc. 33 at 4), may provide a basis for the Eleventh Circuit's grant of authorization to file a second or successive Motion to Vacate, [3] this decision does not excuse a petitioner from first seeking such authorization before filing a second or successive habeas application.

         Congress did not define the phrase “second or successive motion” used in § 2255(h); however, the Supreme Court has “declined to interpret ‘second or successive' as referring to all § 2254 [or § 2255] applications filed second or successively in time.” Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 944 (2007)(emphasis added); see also Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 860 n.6 (11th Cir. 2011)(“Because of the similarities between the provisions governing second or successive petitions under § 2254 and second or successive motions under § 2255, precedent interpreting one of these parallel restrictions is instructive for interpreting its counterpart.”). The Eleventh Circuit has “recognized the existence of ‘a small subset of unavailable claims that must not be categorized as successive, ' but [Cargill's] claim is not one of them.”[4] Ellis v. United States, 593 Fed.Appx. 894, 896-97 (11th Cir. 2014)(citing Stewart, 646 F.3d at 863 (11th Cir. 2011)(petition filed after state-court conviction used to enhance sentence was vacated was not successive)).

         “To determine whether a prisoner's petition is second or successive, [the court] must look to whether the petitioner previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same judgment.”[5] Rivera v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., No. 15-15709, 2016 WL 6677629, *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)(citing Insignares, 755 F.3d at 1278)(emphasis added). A habeas petitioner, challenging the same judgment as an earlier-filed petition that was decided on the merits, must receive authorization from the Eleventh Circuit before filing his second or successive habeas application for relief. Maxwell v. United States, No. 3:09-CR-38-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 345519, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016)(citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007), Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also Garcia v. United States, No. CR 04-147-CG-N, 2015 WL 5608247, *3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 26, 2015)(“To the extent the present motion is construed as an attack on [defendant's] underlying conviction and sentence, that means he will have ‘twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of [this C]ourt. As a result, under AEDPA, he [i]s required to receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge.'” (quoting Burton, 549 U.S. at 153)), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5602446 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2015).

         “This authorization is required even when, as here, a defendant asserts that his motion is based on the existence of a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” United States v. Mitchell, No. 3:03CR57/LAC/CJK, 2015 WL 5635001, *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2015)(emphasis added), report and recommendation adopted 2015 WL 5674849 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2015).

         Because Cargill has not been granted authorization to file a second or successive petition, the court is without jurisdiction and his Motion to Vacate will be denied. An Order denying the Motion to Vacate and dismissing this case will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

         CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

         Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, provides, “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” The applicant for § 2255 relief “cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).” Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). And, the “certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)(emphasis added). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the applicant must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)(citations and internal quotations omitted).

         The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Cargill's second habeas petition without authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Reasonable jurists could not disagree. Therefore, issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.

         DONE.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.