Gary Barfield, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Barfield was tried for first-degree murder as an habitual offender; in the instant action, he alleged that his appointed trial counsel conspired with the state court judge, and with unidentified state officials, to secure his conviction on a lesser included offense. On appeal, he reiterates his arguments below, and further argues that the district court should have construed his complaint as an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Following de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Barfield’s claims. The court also did not err in refusing to construe Barfield’s complaint as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as Barfield already had filed an unsuccessful § 2254 petition, see Gary Barfield v. Larry Norris, No. 01-1287 (8th Cir. Mar. 5, 2001), and did not obtain permission from this court to file a second petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Barfield’s pending motion.