FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14432 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -039 42 -C V -T W T -1 D A V I D E A R L W A T T L E T O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A R T H U R F . B E E L E R , W a r d e n , F e d e r a l M e d ic a l C e n te r - B u tn e r , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 14, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D av id E ar l W attl eto n , p ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s di sm i ss al of hi s pro se 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 1 p eti ti on , construed as a m ot i on t o v ac at e, c o rr e c t , o rs e ta s i d e as e n t e n c e , 2 8 U. S . C . § 2 2 5 5 , a s i m p e r m i s s i b l y s u c c e s s i v e . On a p p e a l, h e a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e h e w a s fo u n d n o t g u ilty o n ly b y r e a s o n o f in s a n ity a nd s ubs e que nt l y c om m i tt e d, he i s notapr i s one ri n c us t ody forpurpos e s of § 2255, a nd thus § 2241 w a s the a ppr opr i a t e a ve nue forr e l i e f . W a tt l e t on pr e vi ous l y f

i l e d a§ 2255 m ot i on, r a i s i ng the s a m e c l a i m s he r a i s e s i n hi s § 2241 p e titio n , w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d a n d w e a f f ir m e d . T he avai l abi l i ty of habeas re l i ef un der § 22 41 pres ent s aqu es ti on of l aw that w e r e vi e w de novo. C ook v. W i l e y , 208 F . 3d 1314, 1317 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . I n a pr oc e e di ng on am ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c ts e nt e nc e , w e r e vi e w the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fa c tu a l f in d in g s fo rc le a re rr o ra n d th e le g a l is s u e s d e n o v o . C a s tillo v. U ni t ed S t at es , 20 0 F . 3d 73 5, 73 6 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). A p e r s o n c o m m itte d a f

te rh a v in g b e e n fo u n d n o t g u ilty b y r e a s o n o f in s a n ity is n o t p r e c lu d e d f

r o m e s tab lis h in g b y w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s th e ille g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 7 ( g ) . S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 is th e p r im a r y m e th o d to c o lla te r a lly att ac k a fe dera l se nt ence . U ni t ed S t at es v. Jordan, 91 5 F . 2d 62 2, 62 9 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). A tt ac ks on the executi on , ra ther than the i m po si ti on , of a s ent ence ar e a m a tt e rforhabe a s c orpus r e vi e w unde r§ 2241. B i s hop v. R e no, 210 F . 3d 1295,3

13 04 n. 14 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). U nd erthe sa vi ng s c l ause of § 2 25 5, a f eder al pri soner m a y br i ng a§ 2241 pe ti ti on i f hi s r e m e dy unde r§ 2255 “ i s i na de qua t e or i n effecti v e t o t estth e l eg al i ty o f h i s d et en ti o n . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 ; see al so W offord v. S cott , 17 7 F . 3d 12 36 , 12 38 -39 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). H ow ever , a peti ti on er w ho has f

i l ed and w as deni ed a § 22 55 m ot i on m ay no tci rc um ventthe succ es si vepe ti ti on rul e s i m pl y by f i l i ng a peti ti on un der § 2 2 4 1 . W o f fo r d , 1 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . A fed eral p ri so n er seek i n g t o fi l e a seco n d o r su ccessi v e § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n m u st f i r s ts e e k a uthor i z a ti on f r om us i n or de rforthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de rthe m ot i on . 28 U . S . C . §§ 22 44 (b)( 3)(A ), 22 55 . H er e, i tw as re as on abl e for the di stri ct c our tt o c ons tr ue W a tt l e t on’ s § 2241 pe ti ti on a s a§ 2255 m oti on. W a tt l e t on, w ho i s i n federa l cust od y, w as att ac ki ng the l egal i ty of hi s det ent i on , no tho w i tw as be i ng c a rr i e d out , a nd § 2255 i s the pr i m ar y ve hi c l e fordoi ng thi s . A l though W a tt l e t on a r gue s on a ppe a l tha ts i nc e he w a s a dj udi c a t e d notgui l ty onl y by r e a s on of i ns a ni ty , he i s nota“ pr i s one r ” a tt a c ki ng hi s “ s e nt e nc e ” a nd the r e for e c a nnot p r o c e e d u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 , h e p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a§ 2 2 5 5 mo ti o n , r a i s i n g th e s a me c l a i ms he now r a i s e s i n hi s § 2241 pe ti ti on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d tha ta s a§ 2255 m o tio n a n d r u le d o n it. W e , in tu r n , a f f ir m e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is e a r l i e r§ 2 2 5 5 mo ti o n , a c c e p ti n g W a tt l e t o n ’ s i mp l i c i tr e p r e s e n t a ti o n th a th i s c l a i ms w er e properl y pursued un der § 22 55 . W att l et on ca nn otno w be heard t o argue thatThus we decline to addre ss Wattleton’s argument that he is not a federal “prisoner ,” that 1 his claims were improperly brought before under § 2255, and that he should be entitled to procee d with the same c laims under § 2241. W e havenot previously addre ssed whether a person committed after beingfound not guiltyby rea son of ins an i ty m ay proce ed under § 2255. However, for

the rea sons discussed, we ne ed not re ach that issue in this case . 4 hi s c l a i m s a r e notpr ope r l y br oughtunde r§ 2255; he c a nnotc i r c um ve ntthe 1 p r o h i b i ti o n o n s u c c e s s i v e p e ti ti o n s s i mp l y b y f i l i n g u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . Th u s , th e s a me r u le s r e g a r d in g c o lla te r a l a tta c ko f s e n te n c e s a p p ly to W a ttle to n . H e p r e v io u s ly tr i e d t o e s t abl i s h the i l l e ga l i ty of hi s de t e nti on thr ough hi s i ni ti a l m oti on, de s i gna t e d a s one unde r§ 2255, a nd he c a nnotnow r e a r gue thos e s a m e c l a i m s i n a s e c o n d p e titio n , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rit is lab e le d a s o n e u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 o r§ 2 2 5 5 . T he onl y w a y tha tW a tt l e t on c oul d pr oc e e d unde r§ 2241 w oul d be t o s how th a t h is r e m e d y u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 “is in a d e q u a te o rin e f fe c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is det ent i on . ” W att l et on has r ai se d h i s § 22 41 cl ai m s r egar di ng bo th o n d i re ctappeal and col l at er al att ac k. A l l of these cl ai m s w er e rul ed on . S i nce W att l et on has had a l l hi s c l a i m s a ddr e s s e d, he ha s nots how n how a§ 2255 r e m e dy i s i na de qua t e or in e f fe c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is s e n te n c e . A s s u c h , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly c o n s tr u e d h is § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n a s a§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S in c e W a ttle to n h a d p r e v io u s ly fi l ed a § 22 55 m ot i on thathad b ee n con si dere d o n the m er i t s, the di stri ctcourt c o rr e c tly c h a r a c te r iz e d h is p r e s e n t m o tio n a s im p e r m is s ib ly s u c c e s s iv e . S i nc e W a tt l e t on s oughtt o c ha l l e nge the va l i di ty of hi s de t e nti on, di d notWattleton ’s motionto f ilehis reply

brief out o f timeis grante d. Ho wever, wede c lin eto 2 addre ss any

new a rguments that arepresented for thefirst time in the reply brief. 5 sa ti sf y the sa vi ng s c l ause of § 2 25 5, and d i d n otse ek ou r per m i ss i on t o fi l e a s e c o n d s u c c e s s i v e p e ti ti o n , w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D. 2