IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION BOBBY RUTLEDGE, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:21-cv-00025-TES-CHW TARMARSHE SMITH, et al., Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioner Bobby Rutledge has filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

challenging his July 1997 conviction and sentence in the Houston County Superior Court. [Doc. 1]. A review of this Court’s records reveals that Petitioner has filed a previous federal habeas corpus petition challenging this same conviction, which was dismissed in 2010. See Order Adopting Report & Recommendation, Rutledge v. Smith, No. 5:07-cv-00086-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2010), ECF No. 72. “Before a second or successive application [for a writ of habeas corpus] 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.”

(b)(3)(A); see also Guenther v. Holt,

(11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,

(2000). The instant Petition is considered successive within the meaning of § 2244(b). Moreover, it does not appear, and Petitioner does not allege, that a three- judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has authorized this Court to consider a successive habeas petition for his 1997 conviction. Without such an order,

this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the successive claims. See § 2244(b)(3)(A); Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles,

, 933–34 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file in the Eleventh Circuit a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition pursuant to § 2244(b)(3).1 The Court also

DIRECTS the Clerk to furnish Petitioner with the application form required by the Eleventh Circuit.2 SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of March, 2021. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 The Court also TERMINATES Petitioner’s pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 4] and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 7] as moot.

2“[A] dismissal of a successive habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not constitute a ‘final order in a habeas corpus proceeding’ for purposes of

(c). . . . Instead, such a dismissal is a ‘final decision’ pursuant to

and a [Certificate of Appealability] is thus ‘unnecessary. . . .’” Bolin v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,

(11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quoting Hubbard v. Campbell,

(11th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of successive habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)). Accordingly, the Court will not address whether Petitioner has met the standards for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability.