Casey v. Dixon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION BRIAN M. CASEY, Petitioner, v. Case No.: 2:25-cv-597-SPC-NPM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Brian M. Casey’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1). Casey is a prisoner of the State of Florida, and he challenges various aspects of his 2012 conviction for third-degree murder. Casey filed a prior federal habeas petition in this district styled Myers v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2:15-cv-696-JLB-KCD.

After three amendments to the petition, Judge John Badalamenti denied some grounds on the merits and dismissed the rest as untimely or unexhausted.

“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., 806 F. App’x 938, 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. “A dismissal of a § 2254 petition as untimely constitutes a dismissal with prejudice on the merits for purposes of restricting a second or successive § 2254 petition.” Jeffus v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 759 F. App’x 773, 775 (11th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, Casey’s habeas petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as successive. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335– (2003) (citations omitted). Casey has not made the requisite showing here and may not have a certificate of appealability.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 15, 2025.

tit WOblatet he UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record