Kennedy Minnifield v. Limestone CF Warden, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10083
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
KENNEDY MINNIFIELD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, LIMESTONE CF,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00986-AMM-JHE
USCA11 Case: 24-10083 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10083
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and J ILL PRYOR and BRANCH,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kennedy Minnifield, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the
dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The district court dismissed Minnifield’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction because he failed to obtain leave to file a second or suc-
cessive application. Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). We affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus as “second or successive.” Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t
of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A “state pris-
oner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courts . . . [in a
second or subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus must]
comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).”
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007). Section 2244(b) requires
that, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
The district court correctly dismissed as successive Minni-
field’s petition, which collaterally attacked the same convictions he
challenged in his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 1997.
Minnifield failed to obtain from this Court leave to file a successive
petition. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Because Minnifield “neither
USCA11 Case: 24-10083 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10083 Opinion of the Court 3
sought nor received authorization from [us] before filing . . . [his]
‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, . . . the Dis-
trict Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.” Burton, 549
U.S. at 157.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Minnifield’s petition.
USCA11 Case: 24-10083 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --