Summary
affirming dismissal of motion to amend, challenging court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed some ten years after final judgment entered on an original §2255 motion
Summary of this case from Baptiste v. United StatesOpinion
No. 10-12863 Non-Argument Calendar.
June 22, 2011.
Mary Jane Stewart, L. Skye Davis, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney's Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Scott Hames, Ashland, KY, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 2:90-cr-00001-WCO-SSC-2.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
William Scott Hames, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to amend his original 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B). Flames argues that the district court erred in dismissing his motion to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when it concluded that his motion was a second or successive § 2255 motion that, he did not have authorization to file.
Hames also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a Certificate of Appealibility (COA). Hames lacks a COA to appear before this court, but a COA is not required when a prisoner seeks review of the dismissal of an "amended" § 2255 motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246-47 (1 lth Cir. 2004) (concluding COA not required for consideration of district court's order because "the district court's decision dismissing the [a]mended [p]etition is not a final order" under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), but rather "a final order dismissing the [a]mended [p]etition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, this court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review questions regarding subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998). We review a district court's application of Rule 15(c) for abuse of discretion. Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2000).
Rule 15(c) allows, in specific circumstances, "an amendment to a pleading [to] relate[] back to the date of the original pleading." Rule 15 can be used in cases where a defendant files a timely § 2255 motion and then later files an amendment or additional motion that relates back to the original § 2255, but would otherwise be untimely. Davenport, 217 F.3d at 1344. An amendment "relates back" to the date of the original pleading if it, "asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or1 occurrence set out . . . in the original pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B). Importantly, a motion under § 2255 can only be amended under Rule 15 before judgment is issued; Rule 15 has no post-judgment application. Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-15 (11th Cir. 2010). Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) requires that any prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive § 2255 motion to vacate must first file a request with this court for an order authorizing the district court to consider the motion. Without such authorization, the district court does not have jurisdiction.
Hames filed his "motion relating back to original § 2255 motion" over ten years after final judgment was entered in his original § 2255 case. Further, Hames did not have authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the motion to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.