FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 17 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 0- cv -0 03 63 -WT H-GRJ FRANKIE D. MILLER,
Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, vers us WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW , 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fran ki e Mi ll er, a pr o s e fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’sdi sm is sa l o f hi s p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us att ack in g h is co nv ic ti on s an d

se nt en ces form on ey

lau nd eri ng an d c on tro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s, fi le d p ur su an t to 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t M il le r co ul d n otpro ceedun de r § 2 24 1 b ecau se he ha d fi le d apri or28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t ha t was de ni edon th e m eri ts , andth e sa vi ng s cl au se of § 22 55 di d n otap pl y to all ow h im

to pro ceed un de r § 2 24 1. 1

“ Ty pi cal ly, a p et it io ne r co ll at eral ly atta ck s the va li di ty of hi s fe de ral se nt en ce b y

fil in g ape ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5.” Sa wye r v. Ho ld er , 32 6 F .3d 13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Howev er, u nd er the sav in gs claus e o f § 2 25 5, a pr is on er m ay

fil e a § 22 41 pe ti ti on in li m it edcir cu m st an ces —i f th e p et it io ne r es tabl is he s t ha t § 22 55 ’s rem edy is in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t the leg al it y of hi s d et en ti on . Id. To m eetth is st an da rd , a pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) hi s cl ai m is ba se d upo n aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le U.S. Sup rem e Co urt d eci si on ; (2 ) th e ho ld in g o f th e U.S. Supr em e Co urt d eci si onest ab li sh edth atth e p et it io ne r was co nv ic te d o f a n on -ex is te ntoff en se ; an d (3 ) ci rcu itlaw s qu arel y for ecl os edsu ch a cl ai m at t he ti m e itothe rwis e sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d a t the pe ti ti on er’s tria l, di rectap pe al , or fi rs t § 22 55 m ot io n. W of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (11 th

We reviewthe ava ilability of habe as re lief under

§ 2241 de novo . Darby v . Hawk- 1 Sawyer , 405 F.3d 942, 944 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 2Ci r. 19 99 ). Onl y if t he pe ti ti on er “ op en s t he po rta l” to a § 2 24 1 p et it io n b y es tabl is hi ng th es e th ree e le m en ts m ay he pro ceedto arg ue th e m eri ts of h is cla im . Se e id . at 1 24 4 n 3 . Inad di ti on , if a fe de ral pri so ne r pr ev io us ly file d a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n t ha t was de ni edor d is m is se d wi th pre jud ic e, he m

us t ap pl y foran d re cei ve pe rm is si on fro m th e co urt o f ap pe al s b efo re fi li ng a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( h) ; Dar by , 40 5 F .3dat 9 45 . The res tri ct io ns on su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns do no t, b y th em se lv es , ren de r th atsec ti on in ad equa te orin effe ct iv e. Dar by , 40 5 F .3dat 9 45 . Thu s, a p et it io ne r who pre vi ou sl y fil eda § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e can no t ci rcu m ve ntth e su cces si ve m ot io n re st ric ti on s b y si m pl y fil in g a§ 2 24 1 p et it io n. Id . App lying th es e st an da rd s, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d M il le r’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n. Be cau se Mi ll er p rev io us ly file d a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, wh ic h was de ni edon th e m eri ts , he c ou ldno t ag ai n s eekrel ie f pu rs ua ntto § 2 25 5 wi th ou t ob ta in in g p rio r au th or iz at io n fr om th is Co urt, wh ic h h e d idno t d o. No r canMi ll er se ekrel ie f un de r § 2 24 1 b ecau se he ha s n otid en ti fie d a s t he ba si s o f an y cla im a retro act iv e Supr em e Co urt d eci si on th atest ab li sh es he was c on vi ct edof ano nex is te ntoff

en se , no r ha s h e as se rte d a ny leg al cla im th atwas u na va il ab le to hi m at th e ti m e h e fi le d h is pre vi ou s § 22 55 m ot io n. Th us , he h as fai le d t o s ho w th atth e 3§ 2 25 5 s av in gs claus e ap pl ie s t o “ op enth e p orta l” to a § 2 24 1 p ro ceed in g.

AFFIRMED.

4