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                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]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, 

, 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., 

,

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, 

, 1247 (11th Cir.

2004). We can review the dismissal as a “final decision” under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. See Hubbard, 

.

      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, 

, 152-53, 

, 796 (2007). We liber-

ally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 

, 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.