FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1567 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 83 2- cv -J -2 0- HTS DENNIS AUBREY W ILSON, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HAEL B. MUKASKEY, d.b .a. Att orne y

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s, GEORGE W . BUSH, d. b. a. 43r ds P re sid en t of

the U nit ed

S tate s, JOR GE PASTRANA, d. b. a. W ar de n, F CI Mi am i, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 14, 200 8) Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

D ennis Aubr ey

W ils on, af

ed er al pr iso ne r, appe al s pr o se the dis m iss al of hi s m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e fo r drug -rel at edoff en se s. 28 U . S. C. § 22 55. B ec au se the r ec or d is ina de quate f or our r ev ie w , w e va cate and rem an d. InMay 199 7, W ils on f

ile d am oti on t o va cate und er se ct ion225 5. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed

that W ils on’ s pl ea din g w as de fi ci en t and o rd er ed W ils on to am en d hi s m oti on w ithspe ci fi c fa ct s and l aw . A ft er W ils on f ai le d to r es pond , the district court conclud ed again that W ilson ’ s m otion wa s deficient and denied the m oti on. W ils on f

ile d am oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n whic h w as a lso de nie d. I t i s un cl ear wh et he r th e d en ia l o f W il so n’s m ot io n was wit h o r wit ho utpre jud ic e. In August 200 7, W ilson filed a pro se pleading and argued that the district co urt di d no t have j ur isd ic tio n ov er his 199 0 c onvi ct ionand tha t the se nte nc ing gui de lin es w er e unc onst itutio na l. A lth oughit is unc le ar

und er w hic h st at

ute W ilson filed his pleading , 28 U .S .C. § 2255 or 28 U. S. C. § 224 1, the district court co nstru ed the ple ad ing a s f

ile d un de r se ct ion224 1 and d ism iss ed it w ith out prej udice because the savings clause didnot apply . In the alternative, the district court stated that, if the m otion wa s filed under section 225 5, it w as dism issed w ith out pr ej udi ce be ca

use W ils on d id n ot h av e pe rmiss ionto fi le ase co nd o r su cces si ve m ot io n.3

Se ct ion225 5 r equir es apr iso ne r w ho h as f ile d an e ar lie r m oti on t o va cate to re ce ive pe rm iss ionf

ro m the Co urt of

Appe al s be fo re f

ili ng anothe r m oti on. 28 U . S. C. § 22 55( h) . U nle ss the Co urt of Appe al s pe rm its the f

ili ng o f a se co nd o r su cces si ve m ot io n, t he di st ric t co ur t l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r th e m ot io n. Farr is v . U nit ed

S tate s, 333 F . 3d 1 211, 121 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . A lth oughthe statut e doe s no t de fi ne “ se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve , ” Mc Iv er v. U nit ed

S tate s, 307 F . 3d 1327 , 133 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) , our pr ec ed en t e sta

bli she s th at

an e ar lie r m oti on m

ust be de nie d w ithpr ej udi ce to re nde r a late r m oti on s ec ond or suc ce ssi ve . S ee D unn v. Singletary , 168 F. 3d 44 0, 441 (11th Cir. 1999). U nde r lim ite d c ir cum stanc es , se ct ion225 5 pe rm its af ed er al pr iso ne r to f

ile a habeas petition un der section 2241 , a provisio n kno wn as the “ savings clause. ” Se e 28 U . S. C. §§ 2 241( a) , 225 5. Ape tit ionund er 224 1 is pe rmitt ed

if the r em edy unde r se ct ion225 5 is ina de quate or ine ff ec tiv e. S ee 28 U . S. C. § 22 55( e) . T he burden is on the m ovant to establish th e inadequacy or ineffe ctiveness. McG hee v. H anbe rr

y , 604 F . 2d 9 , 10 ( 5thCi r. 197 9) . R es tr ic tio ns o n su cc es siv e pe tit ion s unde r se ct ion225 5 do not r en de r re lie f ina de quate or ine ff ec tiv e w ith in the m eaning of the saving s clause. W offord v. S cott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 1999 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o t he av ai labi li ty of habe as rel ie f un de r se ct io n 2 24 1.4

Co ok v . W ile y , 208 F . 3d 1 314, 131 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . W e re vie wque sti ons co nc er nin g th e subj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt de nov o. Me sa V al de rr am a v. U nit ed

S tate s, 417 F . 3d 1 189, 119 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . B ec au se

“ [p ] ro se ple ad ing s are he ld t o ale ss s tr ing en t st an dard than pl ea din gs dra ft ed

by attorney s,” T annenbaum

v. United States, 148 F. 3d 12 62, 1263 (11t h Cir. 1998 ), co urts “have an ob lig at ionto loo k be hin d th e la be l of am oti on f

ile d by apr o se inm at e an d de te rm ine w he the r the m oti on i s, in ef fe ct , c ogni za

ble und er adif fe re nt rem edial fram ew ork.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onstru ed W ils on’ s pl ea din g a s f

ile d un de r se ct ion224 1 be ca use W ils on h ad

a lr ea dy f ile d am oti on unde r se ct ion225 5 and d id n ot h av e pe rmiss ionto fi le asuc ce ssi ve m oti on, but the r ec or d do es not

a llo wus t o de te rmine w he the r W ils on’ s c ur re nt m oti on i s su cc es siv e. T he r ec or d do es not co nta in the f

ir st f ili ng o r the c or

re spon din g or de rs of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. B ec au se we cannot ascertain whether the first f iling wa s denied with or without prej udice, we m us t v acat e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t t o e xa m in e th e rec or d. T he de te rm inatio n whe the r W ils on’ s c ur re nt m oti on i s se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve is a thr es hol d j ur isd ic tio na l qu es tio n. I f the f ir st m oti on w as de nie d w ith pr ej udi ce , the n th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr w he n it dis m iss ed

W ils on’ s c ur

re nt5

m oti on b ec au se the savin gs c lause doe s no t a ppl y and the m oti on i s othe rw ise second or successive. Se e W offord, 177 F.3d at 1245 . If the f irst m otion wa s de nie d w ith out

pr ej udi ce , the n th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t l ac k j ur isd ic tio n to co ns id er Wils on ’s curren t m ot io n u nd er s ect io n 2 25 5. Se e Dun n, 1 68 F.3dat 4 41 . W e va cate and r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o ob ta in and e xam ine the r ec or d to de te rm in e whe th er Wils on ’s earl ie r m ot io n was de ni edwit h o r wit ho utpre jud ic e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d th ende ci de w he the r W ils on’ s c ur re nt m oti on s houl d be denied or consid ered f

urther. VACATED AND REMANDED.