Fugate v. Department of Corrections, 02-14400.
| Citation | 301 F.3d 1287 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-14400.,02-14400. |
| Parties | Wallace M. FUGATE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jim Wetherington, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Sanjay Kishin Chhablani, Stephen B. Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
James Jayson Phillips, State of GA Dept. of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before BIRCH, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Fugate appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint and moves to enjoin and restrain the defendants from executing him until they take certain measure to minimize the risk of unnecessary pain, suffering and mutilation during the execution process. The execution is presently scheduled for 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, 14 August 2002.
The district court concluded that Fugate's action, putatively brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was properly construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and found that it was without jurisdiction.1 We hold that the district court correctly dismissed Fugate's complaint. A complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from a sentence of death as cruel and unusual punishment "constitutes the `functional equivalent' of a second habeas petition," and "the district court [i]s subject to the law applicable to successive habeas petitions." Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir.1997), citing Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 95, 96 (11th Cir.1996). The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Fugate's claim because he had not applied to this court for permission to file a successive application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
We further note that such an application is due to be denied. See In re Provenzano, 215 F.3d 1233, 1235-36 (11th Cir.2000) (). We, therefore, deny Fugate's request for an injunction and affirm the district court's dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
1. As a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petition is subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-132.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esty v. Jones
...to entertain second habeas petition since prisoner did not obtain order authorizing him to file the petition); Fugate v. Dep't of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same). The parties do not dispute that petitioner did not obtain permission from the Eleventh Circuit to file the pr......
-
Reid v. Johnson
...Gomez v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. Cal., 503 U.S. 653, 653-54, 112 S.Ct. 1652, 118 L.Ed.2d 293 (1992); Fugate v. Department of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 980, 123 S.Ct. 15, 153 L.Ed.2d 878 (2002). A claim seeking to enjoin a scheduled executio......
-
Smith v. State of Fla.
...remained the prevailing law in the Eleventh Circuit through 2004. See Nelson v. Campbell, 347 F.3d 910, 912 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Fugate, 301 F.3d at 1288); Fugate v. Dep't of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002) (citing Hill, 112 F.3d at 1089); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, ......
-
In re Bradford
...by § 2244(b)(3)(A), “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider [the] second or successive petition”); Fugate v. Dep't of Corr. , 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002) (“The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider [the petitioner's] claim because he had not applied to this court......
-
Chad Lennon, Accrual and Unusual? Calibrating the Statute of Limitations on Section 1983 Method-of-execution Challenges
...and thus, is properly construed as a petition for habeas corpus.”), abrogated by Cooey, 479 F.3d 412; see also Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (declaring that a method-of-execution challenge brought as a § 1983 action was improper because such a c......