ROMERO v. FORD (2018)

Gerson Ayala Romero, a pro se Georgia prisoner serving 20 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to multiple offenses, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as second or successive. Romero argues (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not prepare a defense and communicate with him. He argues that his counsel’s performance caused him to enter a guilty plea and that he was prejudiced; (2) that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because his counsel did not provide him with an interpreter to understand the consequences of entering a guilty plea, and that his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), were violated because he did not knowingly waive his rights against self-incrimination and to a jury trial; and (3) that the denial of an interpreter violated his due process rights because he did not understand the consequences of entering a guilty plea.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides that, before a movant may file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition, the petitioner first must obtain an order from this court authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent our authorization, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive [§ 2254] petition.” Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). The Supreme Court has held that the phrase “second or successive” in § 2244(b) refers to a second or successive petition challenging the same state-court judgment. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332–33, 130 S.Ct. 2788, 2797, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010).

The district court did not err in determining that Romero’s § 2254 petition was second or successive. Romero previously filed a § 2254 petition that was denied with prejudice as untimely in 2016; therefore, he was required to obtain our authorization in order to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because he did not have our authorization, the district court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: