Court Opinion

ID: 9409730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 14:00:49.538354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.964526
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11057    Document: 19      Date Filed: 07/18/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-11057
                         ____________________

      ANTONIO U. AKEL,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
      versus
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01156-LC-MAL
                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11057      Document: 19      Date Filed: 07/18/2023     Page: 2 of 4

      2                        Order of the Court                  23-11057

      Before NEWSOM and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      BY THE COURT:
              Antonio Akel appeals the dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C.
      § 2255 motion to vacate his convictions and sentence, which he
      filed after his first § 2255 motion was adjudicated and his sentence
      was amended. The district court dismissed the second motion for
      lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon Akel’s request. We asked
      the parties to address whether Akel has standing to challenge this
      dismissal that he requested. Upon review of the record and the
      parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, we conclude that
      Akel has standing to challenge only part of the district court’s order
      dismissing his second § 2255 motion.
              A magistrate judge reviewed the second § 2255 motion,
      which asserted 12 claims, or grounds, for relief. The magistrate
      judge issued an order finding that the district court lacked jurisdic-
      tion over the claims relating to Akel’s original trial, sentencing, and
      appeal—which represented 8 of the 12 claims—because they were
      successive and Akel needed prior authorization from this Court to
      pursue them. The magistrate judge found that the four remaining
      claims, which appeared to focus on errors relating to Akel’s resen-
      tencing, were not barred from collateral review and directed Akel
      to file an amended § 2255 motion that omitted the eight jurisdic-
      tionally barred claims. The district court denied Akel’s objection
      to the magistrate judge’s order, concluding that the order was “nei-
      ther clearly erroneous nor contrary to law” and that Akel’s sen-
      tence reduction did not provide him with the opportunity to file
USCA11 Case: 23-11057       Document: 19      Date Filed: 07/18/2023      Page: 3 of 4

      23-11057                 Order of the Court                            3

      successive or duplicitous § 2255 claims. While the district court did
      not, in that order, dismiss the claims it had found jurisdictionally
      barred, it returned the matter to the magistrate judge, who again
      directed Akel to file an amended § 2255 motion that omitted the
      barred claims. Akel then filed his motion to dismiss the § 2255 pro-
      ceedings.
              Although a prevailing party does not generally have stand-
      ing to appeal, the district court had an obligation to inquire into its
      subject matter jurisdiction over Akel’s second § 2255 motion. See
      Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting
      that an adverseness requirement applies in the appellate setting
      such that “[o]nly a litigant who is aggrieved by the judgment or
      order may appeal”). Before Akel filed his motion to dismiss, the
      district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
      over 8 of the 12 claims Akel raised in his second § 2255 motion.
      Therefore, the district court had an obligation to dismiss those
      claims, irrespective of Akel’s motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
      12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
      matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Univ. of S.
      Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Simply
      put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject mat-
      ter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue . . . [and] the only
      function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
      dismissing the cause.” (quotation marks omitted)). However, the
      district court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the other four
      claims in the second § 2255 motion and told Akel he could pursue
      them, yet Akel’s motion to dismiss sought to dismiss the entire
USCA11 Case: 23-11057      Document: 19     Date Filed: 07/18/2023     Page: 4 of 4

      4                       Order of the Court                  23-11057

      motion. Akel thus lacks appellate standing to challenge the dismis-
      sal of those four claims.
              Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, in part, as to the dis-
      missal of the four claims over which the district court determined
      that it had jurisdiction. The appeal may proceed only as to the dis-
      missal of the eight claims over which the district court determined
      that it did not have jurisdiction.