green
Positive treatment
38.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 ·
…enjoin and restrain the defendants from executing fugate until they took certain measures to minimize the risk of unnecessary pain, suffering and mutilation during the execution process,
✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…for permission to file a successive application
at p. 1288
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason Trevon Wharton v. Ricky Dixon
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s second habeas corpus petition because petitioner failed to obtain order from court of appeals authorizing it); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
HOLLIDAY v. DIXON
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas petition because prisoner failed to obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing him to file the petition); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JACKSON v. DIXON
See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas petition because prisoner failed to obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing him to file the petition); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCray v. Florida Department of Corrections
And McCray hasn’t applied to the Eleventh Circuit “for permission to file a successive application.” Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MURPHY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas 1 Although the Court could transfer this action to the Middle District of Florida, the district which encompasses the circuit court of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d), because Murphy is incarcerated at Blackwater River Correctional Facility, a facility in this District and because the petition is an unauthorized success petition, the undersigned finds dismissing this action, rather than transferring it, benefits judicial economy. petition because prisoner fai…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MERRIELL v. DIXON
See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas petition because prisoner failed to obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing him to file the petition); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS v. GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s second habeas corpus petition because petitioner failed to obtain order from court of appeals authorizing it); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PAIGE v. DIXON
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 157 (2007) (district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s second habeas corpus petition because petitioner failed to obtain order from court of appeals authorizing it); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SWEET v. DIXON
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas petition because the prisoner failed to obtain appellate court authorization); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same). “[T]he phrase ‘second or successive’ is not self-defining and does not refer to all habeas applications filed second or successively in time.” Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 859 (11th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cajan v. Florida Department of Corrections
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfred v. Dixon
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Small v. Florida Department of Corrections
And we “lack jurisdiction” to consider a second or successive § 2254 petition unless the habeas petitioner first applies to the Eleventh Circuit “for permission to file a successive application.” Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr, 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Brad Bradley Bradford
Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir.2013) (noting that prisoners may not file second or successive habeas petitions “except when certified as provided in [§ 2244(b)(3)(A)] by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals” and stating that “[t]his bar on second or successive motions is jurisdictional”) (quotation marks omitted); Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir.2007) (holding that “the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the successive petition” when the petitioner failed to apply to this Court for permission to file a successi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darling v. State
(2×)
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, 1088-89 (11th Cir.1997) (citing Felker, 101 F.3d at 96 ) rev’d, 541 U.S. 637 , 124 S.Ct. 2117 , 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerard J. Pugh v. Hugh Smith
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A); Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darrell Grayson v. Richard Allen
Additionally, Grayson’s counsel Stephen Bright, who has ably represented Grayson through more than fifteen years of state and federal post-conviction proceedings, see Grayson v. King, 460 F.3d at 1335 , also served as counsel in 2002 in a § 1983 suit challenging Georgia’s lethal injection protocol, see Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Lamar Smith v. John D. Southwood
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Darrell Williams
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. Johnson
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. Crosby
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 15 , 153 L.Ed.2d 878 (2002).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nelson v. Campbell
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d at 1089 ; Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d at 96 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
David Larry Nelson v. Donal Campbell
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Fugate v. Dep't of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d at 1089 ; Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d at 96 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nelson v. Campbell
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2003); Spivey v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 279 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir.2002); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1088-89 (11th Cir.1997); Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 95, 96 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Theophilus Keaton v. United States of America
See Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephens v. Jacobson
See Fugate v. Dep't of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that a district court may look beyond the title of a document in order to properly analyze its substance). 1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees.
discussed
Cited "see"
Chadrick Vashon Pray v. Department of Corrections
See Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider [the petitioner’s] claims because he had not applied to [the Court of Appeals] for 3 Case: 18-14750 Date Filed: 10/11/2019 Page: 4 of 4 permission to file a successive application.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Vert L. Washington v. United States
See Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Steve A. Strange v. Secretary Department of Corrections
See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second habeas petition because the prisoner failed to obtain appellate court authorization); see also Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clinton Burns v. United States
See, e.g., Fugate v. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002) (affirming after holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim of cruel and unusual punishment to seek relief from a death sentence is the functional equivalent of a second or successive habeas petition, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim because the petitioner had not sought permission from this Court to file it); Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that a prisoner cannot use the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to escape the restrictions on successive § 2255 motio…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Curtis Castra
No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), file leave with this Court for permission to file a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . 4 See Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d at 1316 ; see also *781 Fugate v. Dept. of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002) (“[t]he district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Fugate’s claim because he had not applied to this court for permission to file a successive application.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wallace M. FUGATE, III, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jim Wetherington, Respondents-Appellees
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jim Wetherington, Respondents-Appellees
02-14400.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 14, 2002.
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.
, Birch, Hull, Marcus.
Cited by 31 opinions | Published
BY THE COURT:
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) (finding that a claim that lethal injection as administered is cruel and unusual punishment does not meet the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(A) or (B)). 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.