USA v. Andre Paige

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Andre Paige. Decision: Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-11026

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11026
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:02-cr-00508-EAK-TGW-1
ANDRE PAIGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 10, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Paige appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se “Motion to Reopen, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion for Evidentiary Hearing,”
which the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set

Case: 15-11026

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

Page: 2 of 4

aside, or correct sentence. In response, the government raises the issue of whether
the district court erred in denying Paige’s § 2255 motion, rather than dismissing
the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since Paige failed to seek our
permission to file a second or successive motion. After careful review, we vacate
and remand with instructions for the district court to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
In every case, we must ensure both that we have jurisdiction over an appeal,
and that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the case on the merits. Boyd
v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 188 F.3d 1294, 1297-98 (11th Cir. 1999); see Hubbard
v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s
determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion).
If the lower court lacks jurisdiction to consider the case on the merits, we have
jurisdiction on appeal solely to correct the lower court’s error. Boyd, 188 F.3d at
1298. We review jurisdictional questions de novo. Williams v. Chatman, 510
F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007).
Before a federal prisoner can file a second or successive § 2255 motion, he
must obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to
consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); In re Blackshire, 98
F.3d 1293, 1293 (11th Cir. 1996). Without our order of authorization, the district
court is without jurisdiction to consider the § 2255 motion.
2

28 U.S.C. §§

Case: 15-11026

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

Page: 3 of 4

2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.
2003). Prisoners cannot escape this gatekeeping function by relabeling their claim
as something other than a § 2255 motion. See Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d
1293, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc). If the prisoner’s motion fails to meet the
jurisdictional requirements of §§ 2244(b) and 2255, the district court should
dismiss the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(1)-(2), (4), 2255(h); Williams, 510
F.3d at 1295 (vacating the district court’s judgment denying the defendant’s Rule
60(b) motion, and remanding the case back to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction).
In this case, the district court here properly concluded that it did not have
subject matter jurisdiction to resolve Paige’s successive § 2255 or Rule 60(b)
motion. Paige’s motion was a § 2255 motion to vacate or a Rule 60(b) motion for
relief, so he was required to gain our permission to file a successive motion in
district court since he filed a previous § 2255 motion that had been denied. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); In re Blackshire, 98 F.3d at 1293. Paige never
sought or received our permission to file a successive § 2255 motion.
Nevertheless, the district court erred by denying Paige’s § 2255/Rule 60(b)
motion -- as if it had ruled on the merits -- rather than dismissing it for lack of
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(1)-(2), (4), 2255(h); Williams, 510 F.3d at

3

Case: 15-11026

Date Filed: 04/10/2017

Page: 4 of 4

1295. We therefore vacate the district court’s order, and remand to the district
court with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

4