United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on initial review of the file.
Petitioner, currently incarcerated within the Florida penal
system at Desoto Correctional Institution filed a Petition
for Habeas Corpus Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(Doc. 1) on January 12, 2018. Petitioner challenges
his 1974 conviction for first degree murder for which he is
serving a life sentence imposed by the Circuit Court for the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida.
Because the case is in the early stages, no response has been
filed to the Petition. Upon review of the Petition, the Court
concludes that this case must be dismissed without prejudice
to allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek authorization
from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second
28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
November 29, 1973, Petitioner was indicted for first degree
murder for the beating death of George Beckworth. (Doc.
1-1 at 6). Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge
on January 28, 1974. Id. at 10. Petitioner was
seventeen years old at the time with an IQ between sixty and
seventy. Id. at 6. Petitioner was sentenced to life
without parole. Id. at 2.
has filed two previous petitions for habeas relief with this
Court relating to his 1974 murder conviction and sentence,
Shaw v. DOC, 8:10-cv-2490 (M.D. Fla. 2010); and
Shaw v. DOC, 8:11-cv-1853 (M.D. Fla. 2011). Both
prior petitions were dismissed as time barred under the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner filed the instant Petition
on January 12, 2018.
avers that his Petition should be granted because he was a
juvenile when he was convicted and sentenced to life in
prison without parole. Petitioner argues that the AEDPA
statute of limitations does not apply to his case because
recent Supreme Court case law made sentencing a juvenile to
life in prison without parole unconstitutional. Petitioner
argues that the Supreme Court ruling is retroactive and
applies to his case. However, Petitioner's Petition is a
successive petition it must be dismissed.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear
cases where authorized by the Constitution or by statute.
See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides, in
(b) (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed unless-
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been
discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence;
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would ...