FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 07 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 1- cv -0 03 26 -WT H-TBS

JAM AIL JAMES HOGAN, Pet it io ne r - App el lant , ve rs us WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja m ai l J am es Hog anap pe al s pr o s e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 2 8U.S.C. § 2 24 1 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . Becau se Hog an ’s pet it io n was

no t p erm is si bl e und er the “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” o f 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5, we af firm . Hog anwas c on vi ct edin20 06 of v ari ou s fe de ral co ns pi racy, rob be ry , carjac ki ng , andfir earm

off en se s, an d h is co nv ic ti on s b ecame fin al on Marc h 3 , 20 08
. See Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho ga n , 25 3 F . App ’x 88 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (unp ub li sh ed ), cer t. d

en ie d , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 48 8 (2 00 8) . Hog anha d o ne y ear f ro m th atda te to fil e a § 22 55 m ot io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (f)(1 ). On Ma rch 31 , 20 10 , Hog anfil eda § 2 25 5 m ot io n, ar gu in g tha t h is m ot io n was ti m el y un de r § 2 25 5( f)(2 ) be cau se , eve n tho ug h i t was fil edm or e th ana y ear a fte r hi s ju dg m en t of co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l, “ go ve rn m en ta l ac ti on ” p rev en te d h im fro m fil in g a § 2 25 5 m ot io n wi th in th e li mit at io ns pe rio d. Sp eci fic al ly, he ass ert edth athe was in st at e cu st od y

on st at e ch arg es fro m

Octo be r 31 , 20 06 un ti l M arch 12 , 20 09 , whe re h e was un ab le to pu rs ue fed eral po st -co nv ic ti on rem ed ie s. The di stric t co urt d is m is se d Ho ga n’s § 22 55 m ot io n a s t im e-b arre d b ecau se th e al le ge d g ov ern m en ta l ac ti on was n ot“ in vi ol at io n o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on or l aws of th e Uni te d S ta te s” as r equi redby § 22 55 (f)(2 ). Furth er, ev enif the st atut e o f li mit at io ns be ga n t o ru n o n M arch 12 , 20 09 , Hog an ’s m ot io n, fi le d m or e th ana y ear t he reaf

te r, was t im e-b arre d. Ho ga n app eal ed , bu t the di st ric t co urt an d thi s

2co urt d ecl in edto is su e a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity . Hog anth enso ug htlea ve of 1 th is co urt t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. We den ie d h is reque st . 2 In J un e 2 01 1, Ho ga n fi le d a§ 2 24 1 p et it io n, ra is in g the same argu m en ts he rai se d i n h is pre vi ou s § 22 55 m ot io n. He ar gu edth atth e co urt s ho ul d c on si de r hi s arg um en ts be cau se he was p rev en te d fr om fil in g ati m el y

§ 2 25 5 m ot io n wh il e h e was inst at e cu st od y

awai ti ng an d u nd erg oi ng tri al . Andhe co nt en de d tha t h e was en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r th e “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” o f § 2 25 5( e) b ecau se § 2 25 5 was

“ in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve ” to tes t the leg al ity of h is de te nt io n andbe cau se he was actua ll y in no cen t. Th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d the pe ti ti on , fin di ng th atHog an ’s hi st ory of § 22 55 m ot io ns m ad e h im un ab le to pu rs ue rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1, an d tha t Hog an ’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n was no t p ro pe r un de r th e § 22 55 sav in gs claus e. Thi s i s Hog an ’s app eal
. The av ai labi li ty of habe as rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1 i s a que st io n o f la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Dar byv. Hawk -S aw yer , 40 5 F .3d92 4, 9 44 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Gen eral ly, a p ris on er m

us t co ll at eral ly atta ckhi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e und er § 2 25 5. Sa wye r v. Ho ld

er , 32 6 F .3d13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). If, ho wev er, a rem edy un de r § 2 25 5 “ is in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t the leg al ity of [ th e
See H ogan v. United States , No. 10-11744 (11th Cir. Jul y 23, 2010). 1 See I n re Hogan , No. 10-15977 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011). 2 3pr is on er’s] det en ti on ,” a p ris on er m ay fil e a § 22 41 pe ti ti on . 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 (a), 2 25 5( e). A pe ti ti on er i s n oten ti tl edto tak e adva nt ag e o f th is “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” whe n h e is “ at te m pt in g t o u se § 2 24 1 s im

pl y to esc ap e th e res tri ct io ns on se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns .” W of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9)
. Hog anco nt en ds th athi s § 22 41 pe ti ti on sh ou ldpro ceedbe cau se th e st atut e of li m it at io ns on hi s o rig in al § 2 25 5 m ot io n e xp ire d wh il e h e was inst at e cu st od y , whe re h e d idno t kno w abo utpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f an d d idno t h av e acc es s t o res earc h re so ur ces . Thu s, h e arg ue s, § 22 55 is in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t the le ga li ty of hi s d et en ti on . ButHog anpre vi ou sl y m ad e th es e sam e arg um en ts ab ou t th e ti m el in es s o f hi s p et it io n, an d we d en ie d re li ef. Andwe ha ve de ni edhi s reque stto fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on ba se d, ag ai n, o n the se same arg um en ts . It i s the refo re ev id en t tha t Ho ga n’s § 22 41 pe ti ti on is anatt em ptto 3 ci rcu m sc rib e o urres tri ct io ns onsec on d o r su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns . This is no t
a v al idreas on to em

pl oy the sav in gs claus e. W of fo rd , 17 7 F .3dat 1 24 4. Furth er, t o the ex te ntHog anarg ue s tha t h e m us t b e p erm it te d t o fi le a § 2 24 1 p et it io n b ecau se of h is actua l i nn oc en ce, h is co nt en ti on is for ecl os edby
See H ogan , No. 10-11744, slip op. at 1-2 (11th Cir. Jul y 23, 2010) (“ Hog an’s motion 3 plainly is barre d by

the one- year

statute of limitations i n § 2255(f) (2), ( 2), and he has not shown extraordinary

circ umstances wa

rra nting e quitable tolling.”)
.

4W

of fo rd , inwhi chwe st at edth ata pe ti ti on er m ay no t ar gu e actua l i nn oc en ce u nt il he ha s “ op en [ed ] th e p orta l” to a § 2 24 1 p ro ceed in g b y de m on st rat in g tha t the
sa vi ng s cl au se of § 22 55 ap pl ie s. 1 77 F.3dat 1 24 4 n .3. Bec au se we fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y di sm is se d Ho ga n’s § 22 41 pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

5