JACKSON v. DIXON

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
MARCUS D. JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 3:25-cv-2229-AW-MJF
RICKY DIXON,
Respondent.
____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Marcus Jackson, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The undersigned concludes
that the petition should be dismissed summarily for lack of jurisdiction,
because the petition is an unauthorized “second or successive” habeas
corpus application.
J ACKSON ’S P ETITION
Jackson (DC #P30790) is an inmate of the Florida Department of
Corrections housed at the Okaloosa Correctional Institution. Doc. 1.
Jackson is challenging his conviction and life sentence for first-degree
murder by drug distribution, in Escambia County Circuit Court Case No.
Case 3:25-cv-02229-AW-MJF Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
2016-CF-3523. Jackson’s petition raises one claim: “Actual Innocence:
The State failed to establish causation in the Indictment or proved it at
trial.” Doc. 1 at 5 in ECF.
Jackson admits, and the Northern District of Florida’s records
confirm, that Jackson previously filed a § 2254 petition in this District
Court challenging the same judgment. Doc. 1 at 12 in ECF; see also
Jackson v. Dixon, No. 3:24-cv-520-LC-MJF.1 That § 2254 petition was
denied on June 9, 2025. Jackson, 2025 WL 1643752 (N.D. Fla.), report
and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1638182 (N.D. Fla. June 9,
2025).
The Northen District of Florida’s records also reflect that Jackson
filed a second § 2254 petition in this District Court challenging the same
judgment. See Jackson v. Dixon, Case No. 3:25-cv-1117-LC-HTC. That
petition 	was 	summarily 	dismissed 	on 	August 	22, 	2025, 	for 	lack 	of
jurisdiction because it was an unauthorized successive petition. 	See
1 The court takes judicial notice of its own records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201;
United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n. 5 (11th Cir. 1987).
Case 3:25-cv-02229-AW-MJF Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Jackson, 2025 WL 2434977 (N.D. Fla.), 	report and recommendation
adopted, 2025 WL 2432203 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2025).
Jackson now seeks to challenge the same judgment a third time.
Jackson applied to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit seeking authorization to file a successive petition raising his
“actual 	innocence” 	claim. 	The 	Eleventh 	Circuit, 	however, 	denied
authorization and dismissed Jackson’s application “because Jackson only
presents a claim that was raised in his initial § 2254 petition.” See In re
Marcus Jackson, No. 25-12963, Doc. 2 at 4 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025) (copy
docketed in 3:25-cv-1117-LC-HTC, Doc. 9).
D ISCUSSION
“Before a second or successive [habeas corpus] application . . . is
filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Rule 9, Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (2019) (“Before
presenting a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an
order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court
Case 3:25-cv-02229-AW-MJF Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and (4).”). A
district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive”
habeas 	corpus 	petition 	that 	was 	not 	previously 	authorized 	by 	an
appellate court. 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).
Jackson’s present § 2254 petition is a “second or successive” habeas
corpus application. The record establishes that Jackson has not received
the Eleventh Circuit’s authorization to file this petition. Jackson’s failure
to receive the requisite authorization operates as a jurisdictional bar that
requires dismissal of this case. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS Jackson’s § 2254 petition without prejudice for lack
of jurisdiction.
Case 3:25-cv-02229-AW-MJF Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 12th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are
advised 	that 	if 	they 	dispute 	the 	accuracy 	of 	any
judicially-noticed fact, or if they otherwise wish to be
heard on the propriety of the District Court taking
judicial notice of that fact, they must raise this issue in
an objection to this report and recommendation.
Case 3:25-cv-02229-AW-MJF Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 5