Court Opinion

ID: 9409875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 19:01:28.797922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.099212
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13456    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13456
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL RAY ALFORD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:02-cr-00008-RH-CAS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13456      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 07/19/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13456

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Michael Ray Alford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
       filed a motion in the district court seeking leave to amend a mo-
       tion she filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging her conviction.1
       She filed the motion to amend in 2022, approximately 15 years
       after the district court had denied with prejudice her original
       § 2255 motion. The district court treated Alford’s proposed
       amendment as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 mo-
       tion and denied the motion to amend. Alford appealed, challeng-
       ing the district court’s decision. The government, in turn, moves
       for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion.
                                          I.
              In 2002, Alford pled guilty to transporting visual depictions
       of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in interstate
       commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), and was sen-
       tenced to 57 months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year
       term of supervised release. She also was required to register as a
       sex offender.
              In 2004, Alford filed a § 2255 motion seeking to vacate her
       conviction. She raised numerous challenges, including that she
       received ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2007, the district

       1 Alford is a transgender woman who uses she/her/hers pronouns.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456        Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 07/19/2023   Page: 3 of 5

       22-13456                  Opinion of the Court                         3

       court denied the § 2255 motion with prejudice, determining that
       Alford’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. Both the dis-
       trict court and this Court denied Alford a certificate of appealabil-
       ity.
              In 2021, Alford filed an application seeking authorization to
       file a successive § 2255 motion raising ineffective assistance of
       counsel claims. A panel of this Court denied the application be-
       cause Alford was seeking to raise the same claims that the district
       court had rejected when it denied her original § 2255 motion.
               In 2022, Alford filed a motion in the district court to amend
       her original § 2255 motion. She argued that the amendment
       would “clarify and amplify” the ineffective assistance of counsel
       claims that she had raised in her original § 2255 motion. Doc. 162
       at 1. 2 The district court denied the motion to amend, describing
       the proposed amendment as an “attempted end-run around the
       prerequisites to a second or successive § 2255 motion.” Doc. 165
       at 1–2.
               This is Alford’s appeal. After Alford filed her appellant’s
       brief, the government moved for summary affirmance.
                                             II.
              Summary disposition is appropriate where time is of the es-
       sence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are

       2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456         Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 07/19/2023         Page: 4 of 5

       4                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13456

       involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied.” Groen-
       dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 3 It
       also is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is
       clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
       question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more fre-
       quently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Id.
              Alford argues that the district court erred in denying her
       motion to amend. We review the denial of a motion to amend a
       § 2255 motion for abuse of discretion. Farris v. United States,
       333 F.3d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir. 2003).
              Alford sought to amend her original § 2255 motion many
       years after the district court had denied the original § 2255 motion
       with prejudice. The district court properly treated the proposed
       amendment as a second or successive § 2255 motion. See Hubbard
       v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2004) (construing
       prisoner’s filing, which was labeled as an amended § 2254 habeas
       petition, as a second or successive petition when the amended pe-
       tition was filed several years after the district court had denied the
       prisoner’s original habeas petition).
            We also agree with the district court that the proposed
       amendment was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255
       motion. Before a second or successive § 2255 motion may be filed

       3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
       we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
       handed down before October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-13456     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 07/19/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-13456               Opinion of the Court                        5

       in the district court, a prisoner must receive authorization from
       the appropriate court of appeals allowing the district court to con-
       sider the motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A); 2255(h). Because Al-
       ford’s proposed amendment was an unauthorized second or suc-
       cessive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to re-
       view the amendment. See Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216 (“Without au-
       thorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a sec-
       ond or successive [§ 2255 motion]”). Accordingly, the district
       court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alford’s motion seek-
       ing leave to file the proposed amendment.
             Summary affirmance is warranted here because the gov-
       ernment’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law. Groendyke
       Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, we GRANT the gov-
       ernment’s motion for summary affirmance.
             AFFIRMED.