United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
RON C. EVERETT, Petitioner,
STATE OF GEORGIA, et. al., Respondent.
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE.
Ron C. Everett has filed a pro se “Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Section 2241(c)(3).” ECF. No. 1. Under the rules
governing habeas corpus actions, district courts are required to
promptly examine every application filed and thereafter enter
a summary dismissal if it “plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court.” § 2254
Rules, R. 4; see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to
dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face[.]”); 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Federal district courts thus have a duty “to screen out
frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be
placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary
answer.” § 2254 Rules, R. 4 advisory
part of this obligatory screening, the Court also reviews its
own records to ensure that the petition is not barred, under
28 U.S.C. § 2244, as a second or successive petition.
The relevant statute, § 2244(b)(3)(A), specifically
requires a petitioner to seek and obtain authorization from
the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive habeas
petition in the district court. Without such authorization,
the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the
petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147,
152-57 (2007); Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290,
1295 (11th Cir. 2007).
was convicted in the Superior Court of Chatham County in 2007
of robbery by force, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and
elder abuse. Everett v. State, 297 Ga.App. 351, 351
(2009). He challenges that state court conviction arguing
that it was obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Petitioner's claim is
therefore subject to the procedural restrictions applicable
to Section 2254 actions. See Medberry v. Crosby, 351
F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining history of and
difference between Section 2254 and 2241); Antonelli v.
Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir.
2008) (a prisoner may “not avoid the various procedural
restriction imposed on § 2254 petitions . . . by
nominally bringing suit under § 2241”); Thomas
v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir. 2004)
(collateral attack of custody pursuant to a state court
judgment is subject to Section 2254 and the procedural
at least Petitioner's fourth federal habeas petition
attacking his 2007 Chatham County conviction.
Petitioner's first federal habeas petition was brought in
the Southern District of Georgia and was dismissed as
untimely. See Everett v. Barrow, 4:12-cv-73-WTM-GRS,
ECF. No. 16 (S.D. Ga. 2012). The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals denied Petitioner's certificate of appealability.
Id. at ECF. No. 23. Petitioner subsequently filed
two applications for writ of habeas corpus in this district,
both of which Petitioner framed as being brought under
Section 2241(c)(3). See Everett v. Barrow,
5:13-cv-289-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. 2013); Everett v.
Conley, 5:15-cv-166-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga. 2015). Those
petitions were dismissed as successive under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A). The instant action is also second or
successive within the meaning of 2244(b).
is no indication that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
has granted Petitioner permission to file a successive habeas
petition. Absent authorization, this Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider the instant petition, and it is properly
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Carter v.
U.S., 405 F. App'x. 409, 410 (11th Cir. 2010)
(vacating dismissal of motion to vacate and remanding to
district court “to dismiss the motion for a lack of
therefore ORDERED that the instant petition be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner's right to file, in the
Eleventh Circuit, a motion for leave to file a second or
successive habeas petition pursuant to section 2244(b)(3)(A).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to furnish Petitioner with the
application form required by the Eleventh Circuit for leave
to file a successive habeas petition.
 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
provides that the Section 2254 Rules are also applicable to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 cases.
 Dismissal of a habeas petition as
second or successive does not constitute a final order for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). See Bolin v.
Sec'y, Fla Dept. of Corr., 628 F. App'x 728, 730
(11th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court need not address