FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 86 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :9 0- cr-0 00 01 -WCO-SSC-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W ILLIAM SCOTT HAMES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:W il li am Sco ttHam es , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o a m en d h is ori gi na l 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n to va cat e, pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le Civ il Pro cedur e 1 5( c)(1 )(B) . Ham es arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s m ot io n t o am en d fo r la ckof s ubjectm at te r juri sd ic ti onwhen itco nc lu de d t ha t h is m ot io n was a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n t ha t h e d idno t h av e au th or iz at io n t o fi le . 1 W e rev ie w qu es ti on s re ga rd in g s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Uni te d St at es v. Oli ver , 14 8 F .3d12 74 , 12 75 (11 thCir . 19 98 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Ru le 15 (c) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Dav en po rt v. Uni te d St at es , 21 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Ru le 15 (c) a ll ows , insp eci fic cir cu m st an ces , “ anam en dm en t t o apl ead in g [to ] rel at e[ ] backto th e d at e o f th e o rig in al pl ead in g.” Rul e 1 5 c anbe us edin cas es wher e a d efen da ntfil es a ti m el y § 2 25 5 m ot io n a ndth enlat er fi le s an am en dm en t o r ad di ti on al m ot io n t ha t re la te s b ackto th e o rig in al § 2 25 5, b ut

Hames a lso argues that the district cour t erre d in denying his motion for a Certificate of 1 Appea libili ty

(COA). H ames lac ks a COA to appe ar be fore this court, but a COA is not require d when a prisoner se eks re view of the dismiss al of a n “ame nded” § 2255 motion for la ck of subject-matter

jurisdiction. See H

ubbard v. Campbell , 379 F.3d 1245, 1246–47 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (conc luding COA not re quired for consideration of district court’s orde r bec ause “ the district court’s de cision dismis sing the [a] mended [p]etit ion is not a final order ” under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) , but rather

“a f inal order dismiss ing the [a] mended [p]etit ion for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (inter

nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Thus, this court ha s jurisdiction to consider the me rits of the district court’ s order under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. 2wou ldot he rwis e b e unt im el y . Dav en po rt , 21 7 F .3dat 1 34 4. Anam en dm en t

“ rel at es ba ck ” to th e d at e o f th e o rig in al pl ead in g i f it , “ as se rts a cl ai m or d efen se th ataro se ou t o f th e co nduc t, tran sa ct io n, o r oc cu rren ce s etou t . . . inth e o rig in al pl ead in g.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (c)( 1) (B). Im po rta nt ly, a m ot io n u nd er § 22 55 can on ly be am en de d u nd er Ru le 15 be fo re jud gm en t i s i ss ue d; Ru le 15 ha s n o p os tjud gm en t ap pl ic at io n. Jac ob s v. Te mpu r-Pedic Int ’l., In c ., 62 6 F .3d13 27 , 13 44 - 45 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Fin al ly, 28 U.S.C. §2 25 5( h) requi res th atan y pri so ne r who wis he s t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e m us t fi rs t fi le a reque stwith t hi s co urt fo r anord er au th or iz in g the di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r th e m ot io n. With ou t s uc h aut ho riz at io n, the di st ric t co urt d oe s n othave juri sd ic ti on . Ham es fil edhi s “ m ot io n re la ti ng ba ckto ori gi na l § 22 55 m ot io n” ov er t en y ears aft er fi na l ju dg m en t was en te redinhi s o rig in al § 2 25 5 c as e. Furth er, Ham es di d n otha ve au th or iz at io n fr om th is co urt t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5. The refo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e m ot io n t o a m en d fo r la ck of subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on . The d eci si on of the di st ric t co urt i s AFFIRMED.

3