Kennedy Minnifield v. Limestone CF Warden, et al, No. 24-10083 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 24-10083 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10083 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KENNEDY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 2 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 24-10083 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL 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 successive 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 prisoner 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 Minnifield’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 24-10083 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 sought nor received authorization from [us] before filing . . . [his] ‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, . . . the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.” Burton, 549 U.S. at 157. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Minnifield’s petition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
