USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-11786
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DAVID BRITT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
KARL FORT,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-04304-SCJ
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11786
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Britt, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Britt argues that the district court erred when
it determined that his case is a successive § 2254 petition because
Britt had filed a previous federal habeas petition challenging his
Georgia state convictions and sentences that the district court de-
nied on the merits. After a review of the record and having read
Britt’s appellate brief, we affirm the district court’s order of dismis-
sal. 1
I.
We review de novo a district court’s order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction. Howard v. Warden, 776 F.3d 772, 775 (11th
1 The Appellee did not file an appellate brief.
USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 3 of 5
21-11786 Opinion of the Court 3
Cir. 2015). We also review de novo whether a habeas petition is
successive. Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”), typically required for appeals from a final order of a ha-
beas proceeding, is not required for an appeal of an order dismiss-
ing a petitioner’s filing as a successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); See Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir.
2004). We can review the dismissal as a “final decision” under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. See Hubbard, 379 F.3d at 1247.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a state prisoner who wishes to
file a second or successive habeas corpus petition must move the
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to con-
sider such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Whether a ha-
beas petition is successive depends “on the judgment challenged.”
Patterson, 849 F.3d at 1325. Where the prisoner fails to seek or
USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11786
obtain authorization to file a successive petition, the district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 127 S. Ct. 793, 796 (2007). We liber-
ally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008).
II.
We conclude that, based on the record, the district
court properly dismissed Britt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction be-
cause Britt had previously filed a habeas petition challenging the
same convictions and he never received the required authorization
to file a successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Burton,
548 U.S. at 152-53. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
dismissing Britt’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2
2 We DENY Britt’s motion to supplement the record.
USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 5 of 5
21-11786 Opinion of the Court 5
AFFIRMED.