Opinion
Case No. 8:11-CV-1156-T-30MAP.
June 1, 2011
ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the pro se prisoner Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED because it is nonsensical, frivolous, and fails to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Further, to the extent Plaintiff's complaint may be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the convictions on which he is currently in custody, Plaintiff has previously sought federal habeas relief in this Court regarding those convictions. See Ranson v. Mills, 8:08-cv-2314-T-23TGW (M.D. Fla. 2008) (dismissed as time-barred April 5, 2011). Therefore, this would be a second or successive petition, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3), Plaintiff is required to obtain authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals prior to initiating this action. See Medina v. Singletary, 960 F.Supp. 275, 277-78 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (and cases cited therein). Plaintiff has not shown that he has applied to the court of appeals for an order authorizing this Court to consider his application.
Although Plaintiff identifies his complaint as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus", Plaintiff asserts that his "claim is for libel, a civil action lawsuit . . ." (Dkt. 1 at p. 1). The Court notes Plaintiff filed a nearly identical lawsuit in this Court in case no. 8:11-cv-1097-T-26EAJ (dismissed May 19, 2011).
The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 1, 2011.