FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUB LISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 8-1451 7 Non-Argum ent C al en da

r

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No s. 05 -23260 -CV-ASG, 96-004 43-C R-ASG ELADIO AL BE RT O MU NOZ,

Pet iti one r-Appe lla nt, ve rsus UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A, Re spon de nt-App el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

theUni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for theSouth ern Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Dec em be r 7, 20 11) Be fore B ARKETT, M ART IN an d ANDE RSON, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. PER C URIAM :Ela dio Alb ert o Munoz , a fed era l pri sone r, ap pe al s fol lowi ng t he de nia l of h is ha be as pe tit ion , file d pu

rsua nt t o 28 U.S.C . § 2 255, in whic h th e dis tric t c ourt grante d hi m

a c ert ific at e of a

ppe al ab ili ty

(“ COA ”) o n hi s c la im s of i ne ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns ela

nd v iol at ion

of United

Sta te s v . Boo ke r , 543 U.S. 22 0 (2005). Soon t

he rea fte r, Mu

nozfile d, wi th t

he dis tric t c ourt, se ve ralm oti ons unde r Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60 (b) for rec onsi de rat ion of th e de nia l of h is § 225 5 pe tit ion , al le gin g c onfli ct s of i nte res t of b oth his tria l a nd h ab ea s c ouns el . Thedis tric t c ourt de nie d hi s R

ule60(b) m oti ons, c onc lud ingtha t i t l ac ke d su

bje ct m at te r juris dic tio n ove r the m oti ons be ca

use thea ppe alof th e unde rly ingjud gm ent wa s pe ndi ng wi th thi s C ourt. Mu

noza ppe al ed thede nia l of h is R

ule60(b) m oti ons, whi ch

we co nsol idate d wi th t

he a ppe alon t he de nia l of h is § 225 5 c la im s a nd grant ed

him a COAon t he iss ue of whe the r the dis tric t c ourt e rred i n c onc lud ingtha t i t l ac ke d subj ec t m at

te r juris dic tio n to c onsi de r Mun oz ’s m oti ons for rec onsi de rat ion . Esse nti al ly

we have pe ndi ng b efore us t wo di sti nc t a

ppe al s. No ne the le ss, be ca use we c onc lud e that i t wo uld be pre m at

ure for us t o ruleon t

he m eri ts o f the cl ai m s ra ise d in

theCO A on the de nia l of Munoz ’s § 22 55 p et iti on u nti l a fte r the dis tric t c ourt h as ha d th e oppo rtuni ty to rule on t

he m eri ts o f Mun oz ’s Ru le 60(b) m oti ons, we wil l first

a ddre ss t he CO A on the m oti ons for rec onsi de rat ion . W e revi ew

thedis tric t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at it la ck ed sub je ct m at te r 2juris dic tio n de nov o. M ah one v. Ray , 326 F.3d 1 176, 117 8 (11t h C ir. 20 03). Ge ne ral ly , “ the fili ng o f a n oti ce of a ppe alde prive s th e dis tric t c ourt o f juris dic tio n ove r al l i ssu es inv olv ed

in the a ppe al .” Id. at 11 79. None the le ss, we have he ld t hat

“ dis tric t c ourts ret ai n ju

risdi ct ion a fte r the fili ng o f an

a ppe alto ente rta in a

nd d eny a Ru le 60(b) moti on.”Id. a t 11 80 (e m

pha sis a dde d). How ev er, t he dis tric t c ourt m ay not grant a Ru le 60(b) m oti on wh ilethem at te r is p en din g on

a ppe al . Id. (em pha sis a dde d). Ac co rding ly , we e xpl ai ne d in Ma hone tha t t he prope r co urse for a dis tric t co urt t o foll ow wh en

“pres ente d wi th a

Ru le 60(b) m oti on a fte r a n oti ce of a ppe al [of the und erly ingjud gm ent] ha s be en file d [is to] c onsi de r the m oti on a nd a sse ss its m eri ts.”Id. T he dis tric t c ourt “m ay the n de ny

them oti on o r indi ca

te it s be lie f that t he argum ents ra ise d a

re m eri torio us.” Id. If th e dis tric t c ourt fi nds the argum ents m eri torio us, “the m ova nt m ay the n pe tit ion

thec ourt o f ap pe al s to rem an d th e m at

te r so a s to c onfe r juris dic tio n on thedis tric t c ourt t o gra

nt t he m oti on. Id. 1 Rule 62.1 was adopte d in 2009, after the district court rule d on the motions for 1 rec onsideration in this case, to c odify the pra ctice that most courts had bee n following . Simi lar to our dec ision in Mahone, the rule pr ovides that a district cour t may “(1) defe r considering the motion; (2) deny

the motion; or (3) state e ither that it would grant the motion if the cour t of appea ls remands for

that purpose or

that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 62.1(a) . I f the district cour t indicates either

that it would gr ant the motion or that the motion raises substantial issues, the movant must notify the cour t of appe als, which may

rema nd the entire c ase f

or that purpose . I d. 62.1(b) a nd (c) . 3In thi s c as e, thegov ernm ent c onc ed es , a nd t he rec ord c onfirm s, t

ha t t he dis tric t c ourt e rred b y

findi ng t hat i t di d no t ha

ve sub je ct m at te r juris dic tio n ov er Mun oz ’s Ru le 60(b) m oti ons. C onse que ntl y , we va ca te thede nia l of Munoz ’s Ru le 60(b) m oti ons an d re m an d proc ee din gs t o th e dis tric t c ourt fo r thepurpo se of co nsi de ring Munoz ’s Ru le 60(b) m oti ons an d e ith er (1) d eny the m on t he ir m eri ts, or (2) ind ic at e that t

he iss ue s ra ise d a

re m eri torio us. If the dis tric t c ourt i ndi ca te s that t he iss ue s ra ise d a

re m eri torio us o r that t

he m oti on ra ise s a

sub sta nti aliss ue , Mun oz“ m

ust prom ptl y not ify thec irc uit

c le rk und er Fe d. R . App . P. 12. 1,” to pe tit ion for a rem an d to thedis tric t c ourt. W e do n ot a

nd n ee d no t re ac h, at t

his ti m e, them eri ts o f the ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns ela

nd B ooke r cl ai m s ra ise d in theorigi na l C OA, wh ic h c la im s wil l re m ai n pe ndi ng i n th is C ourt u pon rem an d of t

he Ru le 60(b) m oti ons. Giv en that t he dis tric t c ourt m ay

c onsi de r a R

ule60(b) m oti on a cc ordin g to the proc ed ures out lin ed

in Ma hone , a nd n ow R ule62.1 , whi le at t

he sa m e tim e the ap pe alof th e unde rly ingjud gm ent m ay rem ai n pe ndi ng b efore thi s C ourt, we se e no re as on t o re m an d th e entire c as e at thi s ti m e. In th e ev ent t

hat t he dis tric t c ourt de nie s Munoz ’s Ru le 60(b) m oti ons on t he m eri ts, Mun ozc an

a ppe altha t de nia l an d we c an

a ga in i nc orpora

te tha t de ci sio n wi th t

he pe ndi ng a

ppe aland re sol ve a ll iss ue s at t hat t im e. On t

he oth er h an d, i f the dis tric t c ourt i ndi ca te s th at it woul d

4grant t

he Ru le 60(b) m oti on, w e woul d th en be free to rem an d th e entire c as e for the dis tric t c ourt’ s c onsi de rat ion of th e iss ue s in

thefirst ins ta

nc e. 2 VACAT ED IN PA RT, and RE M ANDE D IN P ART .

The a dvisory

committee notes to Rule 62.1 also identifies an a dditional option for 2 handlingof a Rule 60(b) motion. In the eve nt that the district court finds that a motion prese nts complex is sues which would potentially either be mooted or pre sented in a diff ere nt context by

a decision on the issues ra ised in the appe al, the district cour t may pref er to indicate that the motion raises “a

substantial issue.” It may then explain the rea sons why it would prefe r to rule on the motion only

if the cour

t of appe als indicates that the district c ourt’s dec ision would be useful bef ore it re nders a

decision on the pe nding a ppeal. See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 62.1 advisory committee’s note. 5