Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12687
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:13-cv-62296-KAM,
0:05-cr-60078-KAM-1
ANTOINE FERNAND SAINT SURIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 8, 2020)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Saint Surin is a federal prisoner serving a 180-month sentence for a
drug-importation offense pursuant to a guilty plea. Saint Surin appeals the
Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 2 of 6
dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to set aside a 2015
District Court judgment denying relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court below
found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Saint Surin’s instant Rule 60(b) motion
because the motion was properly construed as a second or successive motion for
habeas corpus relief under § 2255 that was filed without leave of the Court of
Appeals. Additionally, the Court held that, even if jurisdiction were proper, any
Rule 60(b) argument that Saint Surin purported to make was without merit. 1 On
appeal, Saint Surin argues that his motion identified a procedural defect in his
earlier § 2255 proceedings—that the District Court in 2015 allegedly failed to
address one of his § 2255 claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim—
and, thus, the Court below erred in construing his Rule 60(b) motion as an
improperly successive § 2255 petition. We find that the District Court construed
the motion properly and, therefore, we affirm.
I.
We review the dismissal of a motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
de novo. Williams v. Chatman,
510 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007).
Without an order of authorization from this Court, a district court has no
jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive § 2255 petition for habeas corpus
1
Saint Surin’s request for a certificate of appealability on the latter issue was denied by
this Court. Thus, on appeal we are tasked only with reviewing the District Court’s construal of
the motion as a § 2255 petition.
2
Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 3 of 6
relief, and it must dismiss the petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). A prisoner cannot
avoid this jurisdictional hurdle by disguising a motion properly filed under § 2255
as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b). Gilbert v. United States,
640 F.3d 1293, 1323
(11th Cir. 2011) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by McCarthan v. Dir. of
Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc.,
851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). In order
to determine whether a purported Rule 60(b) motion is appropriately construed as a
disguised § 2255 motion, we use the test laid out by the Supreme Court in
Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524,
125 S. Ct. 2641 (2005).
A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on a § 2255 motion is
properly construed as a second or successive § 2255 motion if it either (1) seeks to
add a new ground for relief or (2) attacks the district court’s prior resolution of a
claim on the merits, but not when it attacks a “defect in the integrity” of the § 2255
proceedings. Gonzalez,
545 U.S. at 532,
125 S. Ct. at 2648. Generally, to attack a
“defect in the integrity” of the § 2255 proceedings, the Rule 60(b) motion must
allege a fraud on the court or a procedural error that prevented the court from
reaching the merits of the § 2255 motion. See id. nn.4–5 (differentiating a
challenge to the substance of a § 2255 ruling from allegations of fraud on the court
or procedural rulings such as failure to exhaust, procedural default, or statute of
limitations that prevent resolution on the merits); Williams,
510 F.3d at 1295
3
Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 4 of 6
(holding that an assertion that the movant was not given an opportunity to brief an
issue did not attack the court’s resolution of a claim on the merits).
Saint Surin’s “Rule 60(b)” motion argues that the District Court, when it
denied his petition for § 2255 relief in 2015, failed to adequately address an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on (1) his first attorney’s alleged
conflict of interest and (2) his subsequent attorneys’ failure to investigate the
allegation that someone “forged his signature” on the “legal service agreement”
between himself and his first attorney. Saint Surin contends that the District Court
caused a “fundamental defect” in the proceedings by failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing on the matter and refusing to request production of a waiver of conflict
form on which Saint Surin claims that his signature was forged. Saint Surin claims
that this was equivalent to a failure to address the claim at all, and therefore
constituted a procedural defect in the proceedings.2 He denies that he is attempting
to “relitigate old matters,” but we disagree.
2
We have held that a district court must resolve all claims for relief—defined as any
allegation of a constitutional violation—raised in a § 2255 motion, regardless of whether relief is
granted or denied and regardless of whether the claims for relief arise out of the same operative
facts. Rhode v. United States,
583 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Santa v. United
States, 492 F. App’x 949, 951 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding that a Rule 60(b) motion alleging that the
district court failed to consider all claims raised in a previous § 2255 motion was properly
construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, rather than a successive § 2255 motion, as it did not attack the
merits of the previous § 2255 motion’s disposition).
4
Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 5 of 6
In 2015, the District Court found3 that Saint Surin’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim was procedurally barred from being raised in a § 2255 proceeding
because it had already been raised and rejected on direct appeal,4 and even if it
were not barred, the evidence inescapably supports the conclusion that any
potential for his counsel’s conflict “was fully explained to [Saint Surin] who
understood the potential conflict, and affirmatively waived it.” The Court noted
that Saint Surin’s conflict of interest allegations had already been “the subject of a
lengthy hearing” conducted before the District Court when Saint Surin had moved
to withdraw his guilty plea on this basis, and concluded that Saint Surin had not
met his burden of showing that he was entitled to another evidentiary hearing. And
contrary to Saint Surin’s protestations, the Court did explicitly address the forgery
claim, finding that there was “no deficiency much less prejudice arising from
sentencing or appellate counsel’s failure to pursue this nonmeritorious issue”
because Saint Surin’s only piece of evidence allegedly supporting the allegation, a
forensic examiner’s report, “nowhere . . . suggest[s] that [Saint Surin’s] signature
on any one of the foregoing documents was a forgery.”
Saint Surin’s claim that the Court’s analysis of this issue violated Rule 60(b)
– while couched in easily disprovable allegations that the District Court did not
3
These findings were expressed in a Report & Recommendation prepared by a
Magistrate Judge, which was adopted in its entirety by the District Court.
4
This refers to our decision in United States v. Saint Surin, 477 F. App’x 683 (11th Cir.
2012).
5
Case: 19-12687 Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Page: 6 of 6
address the issue at all – in fact constitutes merely another effort to relitigate the
merits of his claim. That effort is properly construed only as a petition under §
2255. Gonzalez,
545 U.S. at 532,
125 S. Ct. at 2648.
II.
We hold that the District Court properly construed Saint Surin’s Rule 60(b)
motion as an impermissibly successive § 2255 motion because it challenged the
Court’s resolution of the merits of his original § 2255 claim. Because Saint Surin
never sought or received authorization from this Court to bring a successive § 2255
motion, the District Court properly dismissed his motion for lack of jurisdiction.
See
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6
