King v. United States of America
| Matthew Alexander King |
| United States of America |
| 1:2022cv21471 |
| May 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Rodolfo A Ruiz |
| Prisoner: Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Civil Case Terminated. Closing Case pursuant to Paperless Order [ECF No. 3 ] (daa) |
Filing 3
PAPERLESS ORDER dismissing #1 Motion (Complaint) to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) for lack of jurisdiction. The Court, of course, already denied Movant relief in two prior Section 2255 actions in Case No. 20-cv-20383-RAR and Case No. 21-cv-24302-RAR. Thus, "second or successive" status attaches to that underlying criminal judgment. See generally Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 947 (2007) ("In the usual case, a petition filed second in time and not otherwise permitted by the terms of 2244 will not survive AEDPA's 'second or successive' bar."); Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014) ("[S]econd or successive status only attaches to a judgment on the merits."). So, unless an exception applies, the Court lacks jurisdiction here. The exceptions to the bar on successive habeas-related filings filed directly in the district court are not applicable here. These exceptions include a "vacatur-based claim [that] did not exist until after the proceedings [of an] initial 2255 motion concluded." Boyd, 754 F.3d at 1302. Similarly, where a "resentencing [leads] to a new judgment, [a subsequent 2254 petition or 2255 motion] challenging that new judgment cannot be 'second or successive' such that 2244(b) would apply." Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 331 (2010). Likewise, a subsequent habeas-related filing that "is the first to challenge a new judgment... is not 'second or successive,' regardless of whether its claims challenge the sentence or the underlying conviction." Insignares v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273, 1281 (11th Cir. 2014). Finally, if a claim only ripens after the conclusion of both the litigant's direct and collateral reviews, the claim might not be "second or successive." See Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d 1239, 1256 (11th Cir. 2018). But, for this last exception to apply, the claim's very un-ripeness must have prevented the habeas litigant from asserting the question at issue in a petition. See id. at 1249 (citing Magwood, 561 U.S. at 345 (Kennedy, J. dissenting)). The Motion does not allege any exceptions to the successive bar, nor does the Court find that any would apply. Leave to file a successive action in the district court, then, should have been sought in the Eleventh Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). But since the Eleventh Circuit never authorized Movant to file a successive motion, the Court has no jurisdiction over this action. See Insignares, 755 F.3d at 1278 ("[A] district judge lacks jurisdiction to decide a second or successive petition filed without our authorization."). In sum, the Motion [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. An evidentiary hearing is DENIED. A certificate of appealability shall NOT ISSUE. See Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 5/12/2022. (cps)
|
| Filing 2 Judge Assignment to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II. (daa) |
| Filing 1 MOTION (Complaint) to Vacate Sentence (2255). NOTE: All further docketing is to be done in the civil case. (Criminal Case # 1:18-cr-20591-RAR), filed by Matthew Alexander King.(daa) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: King v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Matthew Alexander King | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Represented By: | Noticing 2255 US Attorney |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
