Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-20977-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-20977-CIV-ALTONAGA
THEOPHILUS KEATON,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on pro se Movant, Theophilus Keaton’s Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal
Custody (“Second Motion”) [ECF No. 1], filed on January 23, 2026. Movant attacks the
constitutionality of his conviction and sentence in case number 1 1-cr-20663. ( See generally
Second Mot.). For the following reasons, the Second Motion is dismissed as an unauthorized
successive motion to vacate.
On April 7, 2014, Movant docketed his initial section 2255 motion to vacate. See generally
Keaton v. United States , No. 14- cv-21230, Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2255 . . . (“ First
Motion”) [ECF No. 1] filed Apr. 7, 2014 (S.D. Fla. 2016). As he does in his Second Motion ,
Movant collaterally attacked his conviction and sentence in case number 1 1-cr-20663, raising
various claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel. See generally id . The
Court denied all grounds in Movant’s First Motion on the merits. See generally id., Order Adopting
Report . . . [ECF No. 25] filed May 4, 2015.
“[T]o file a . . . successive [section] 2255 motion, the movant must first file an application
with the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider it.”
Case 1:26-cv-20977-CMA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2026 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 26-20977-CIV-ALTONAGA
2
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (alterations added; citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A)). “Without such authorization, the district court must dismiss a . . . successive
[section] 2255 petition for lack of jurisdiction.” Armstrong v. United States, 986 F.3d 1345, 1347
(11th Cir. 2021) (alterations added; citation omitted). Absent authorization from the Eleventh
Circuit, the Court only has jurisdiction to entertain another section 2255 motion if there has been
“a new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions,” Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S.
320, 341 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted), in which case “an application challenging
the resulting new judgment is not second or successive at all[,]” id. at 341–42 (alteration added;
quotation marks omitted).
Movant’s instant attempt at relief under section 2255 is an unauthorized successive motion
to vacate. Once again, he challenges the criminal judgment in case number 1 1-cr-20663 — the
same judgment underlying his First Motion that the Court denied and dismissed. (Compare First
Mot., with Second Mot.). Further, the Court has not issued a new judgment in case 11- cr-20663
since it adjudicated Movant’s First Motion. See generally Keaton, No. 11 -cr-20663, Dkt. Thus,
until Movant applies to and receives permission from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive
application, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his Second Motion. 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).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pro se Movant, Theophilus Keaton’s Motion Under
28 U.S.C. [Section] 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody
[ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive section 2255
motion. No certificate of appealability will issue. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case.
Case 1:26-cv-20977-CMA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2026 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 26-20977-CIV-ALTONAGA
3
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 19th day of February, 2026.
________________________________________
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Movant, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-20977-CMA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2026 Page 3 of 3