Because Plaintiff's amended petition is a second or successive petition, the Court, as noted above, "does not even have jurisdiction to deny the relief sought in the pleading." United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d at 1148; and cf. Thornbrugh v. United States, 424 F. App'x 756, 759 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that district court "properly held that it 'lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider [a successive § 2255] motion.' "); United States v. Chacon, 421 F. App'x 790, 791 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010) (directing lower court to dismiss successive § 2255 petition without prejudice). The petition therefore must be dismissed or transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 2008); Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997).

"When a second or successive § 2254 or § 2255 claim is filed in the district court without the required authorization from this court, the district court may transfer the matter to this court if it determines it is in the interest of justice to do so under § 1631, or it may dismiss the motion or petition for lack of jurisdiction." In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 2008) (weighing factors announced in Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1223 n.16 (10th Cir. 2006), before transferring a second § 2255 motion); and see Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d at 1148; and cf. Thornbrugh v. United States, 424 F. App'x 756, 759 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that district court "properly held that it 'lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider [a successive § 2255] motion.' "); United States v. Chacon, 421 F. App'x 790, 791 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting dismissal of second or successive motion is without prejudice). The factors that the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit announced in Trujillo v. Williams are (1) whether a new § 2255 motion would be time barred at this point, see Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2000); (2) whether Defendant's claims "are likely to have merit," Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1223 n. 16; Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150 n. 4; and (3) whether Defendant filed his motion in good faith, see Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1223 n. 16; Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Co., 90 F.3d 1523, 1544 (10th Cir. 1996).

See United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006); Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997). Cf. Thornbrugh v. United States, 424 F.App'x 756, 759 (10th Cir. 2011)(unpublished)(noting that the district court had "properly held that it 'lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider [a successive § 2255] motion.'"); United States v. Chacon, 421 F.App'x 790, 791 (10th Cir. 2010)(noting dismissal of second or successive motion is without prejudice).

At the outset, the Court must consider whether it has jurisdiction over this claim or whether it should be considered a second or successive Section 2255 motion, which, if it is, the Court must either dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or transfer to the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Chacon, No. 10-2095, 2010 WL 4846106, at *1-2 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010) (unpublished) (remanding case to district court with instructions to vacate its order dismissing petitioner's motion for writ of audita querela because petitioner had already filed a Section 2255 motion and did not have authorization to file a second one), and United States v. Nguyen, No. 10-3164, 398 Fed. Appx. 336, 338-39, 2010 WL 3965897 (10th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010) (unpublished) (explaining that the common-law writs are not available when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate under Section 2255, and vacating the district court's judgment on the audita querela petition because the petitioner could have brought his claims in a Section 2255 petition; therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of the audita querela petition). The Court finds that this is not a second or successive Section 2255 motion for two reasons.

Petitioner's due process claim is clearly time barred, and, based on Petitioner's multiple filings related to his conviction, it is unlikely that his claims have merit or are filed in good faith. According to the factors in Cline, the Court will dismiss Petitioner's petition without prejudice, see United States v. Chacon, No. 10-2095, 2010 WL 4846106, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010), for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, under rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right, and the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.

JOHN CONWAY, Senior District Judge This matter comes before the Court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Chacon, No. 10-2095, 2010 WL 4846106, at *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010). By order entered on April 14, 2010, this Court dismissed Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Audita Querela with prejudice.

The Court notes that the Courts of Appeal for the Tenth and the Seventh Circuits do not necessarily agree on the applicability or effect of Chambers on Defendant's second or successive attempts to vacate or correct his sentence. Compare In re: Brian Maddox, No. 10-2040 (10th Cir. June 11, 2010), with Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2010); and see United States v. Chacon, No. 10-2095, slip order (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010) (discussing successive § 2255 motions and audita querela). To assist the Court in effecting an appropriate resolution, counsel will be appointed for Defendant, briefs ordered, and a hearing set on the status of Defendant's sentence and possible resentencing.