[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 31, 2007
No. 06-14040 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00948-CV-TWT-1
MICHAEL A. BAYNES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL A. ZENK,
Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 31, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Baynes appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition. Baynes argues that the district court dismissed his petition on the
basis of res judicata and that this is not a proper basis to dismiss a habeas corpus
petition.
The availability of habeas relief under § 2241 presents a question of law that
we review de novo. Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005).
Res judicata does not apply to habeas petitions. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298,
317-19, 115 S.Ct. 851, 862-63, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (“This Court has
consistently relied on the equitable nature of habeas corpus to preclude application
of strict rules of res judicata.”); see also Potts v. Zant, 638 F.2d 727, 738 (11th Cir.
1981) (same). However, claims brought pursuant to successive § 2241 petitions
may be barred by the successive writ rule from 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Glumb v.
Honsted, 891 F.2d 872, 873 (11th Cir. 1990). Under § 2244(a),
No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application
for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person
pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that
the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court
of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus,
except as provided in section 2255.
In this case, although Baynes is correct that strict rules of res judicata do not
apply to habeas petitions, the district court adopted the reasoning of the magistrate
judge, who correctly recommended dismissing the petition as successive under
2
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Because it was not error to dismiss a petition under
§ 2244(a), the district court did not err merely by dismissing the petition on this
basis. See Glumb, 891 F.2d 872; see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116
S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (holding that the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) allowed for modified principles of res
judicata to the analysis of habeas petitions). It was proper to dismiss Baynes’s
petition on this basis because he asserts the same claims addressed by the district
court in a previously filed § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal of Baynes’s petition under § 2244(a).
AFFIRMED.
3