UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KENGI NARADA MERRITT,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-315-SPC-KCD

SHANE BAKER, Warden of DeSoto Correctional Institution,

Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Kengi Narada Merritt’s Application for an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus “Ad Subjiciendum” (Doc. 1). Merritt is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections, and he challenges the adequacy of the charging document in his state criminal case. The Court reviews Merritt’s construed petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Merritt has filed several prior petitions for federal habeas relief. The first—Southern District of Florida Case No. 16-cv-80803-DMM—was denied on the merits. “Congress proscribes that a state prisoner only has one opportunity for federal habeas review; a second petition will be denied as successive.” Faison v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,

, 938-39 (11th Cir. 2020). Before bringing a successive petition, a prisoner must obtain authorization from the court of appeals. Otherwise, the district court lacks jurisdiction. Merritt does not demonstrate that the Eleventh Circuit has

authorized this action. Accordingly, Merritt’s petition is DENIED as successive. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case. If the Eleventh Circuit authorizes a successive habeas petition, Merritt must

file it in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, because that court serves the county where he was convicted. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement

to appeal a district court's denial of his petition.

(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (COA). “A [COA] may issue…only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). To make such a showing, a

petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke,

(2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further,” Miller–El v. Cockrell,

, 335– 36 (2003) (citations omitted). Merritt has not made the requisite showing here and may not have a certificate of appealability on his petition. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 22, 2025.

, Lh platralh< 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record