Hatcher v. United States of America (INMATE 3)(JOHNSON), 2:14-cv-00880

Petitioner Daniel Lamar Hatcher, a federal prisoner, previously filed a § 2255 motion in August 2014 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, closing the case.
In July 2019 Hatcher filed a pro se motion titled “Motion to Submit Newly Discovered Evidence in Light of Rule 15(c)(1)(B) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” seeking to amend his prior § 2255 with newly discovered evidence and arguing the amendment "relates back" to the original filing date.
The magistrate judge treated Hatcher’s filing as an attempt to amend a closed § 2255 proceeding after judgment had been rendered.
The court held that post-judgment amendments to a § 2255 motion are not permitted and that an "amended" petition filed after denial on the merits is a successive petition requiring prior authorization from the court of appeals.
Hatcher had not obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion, so the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and recommended dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hatcher's filing is an allowable amendment that "relates back" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) to his original § 2255	Hatcher: new evidence arises from same conduct and thus relates back to the original § 2255, so amendment is timely	Government: the prior § 2255 judgment was final; relation-back doctrine cannot revive or amend a closed § 2255	Court: Relation-back inapplicable because judgment was rendered; no pending § 2255 to amend
Whether the motion is successive under AEDPA and requires appellate authorization	Hatcher: styled the filing as submission of new evidence, not a successive § 2255	Government: substance controls; post-judgment petition is successive and requires Eleventh Circuit authorization	Court: Motion is a successive § 2255; petitioner must obtain appellate authorization
Whether the district court has jurisdiction to consider the motion absent Eleventh Circuit authorization	Hatcher: impliedly argues court can consider new evidence	Government: without § 2244/§ 2255(h) certification, district court lacks jurisdiction	Court: Lacks jurisdiction; motion dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether AEDPA's procedural restrictions can be avoided by pleading labels	Hatcher: attempted to avoid successive restrictions by labeling filing differently	Government: labels cannot evade AEDPA; substance controls	Court: Labels insufficient; petitioner cannot escape AEDPA requirements

Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (post-judgment habeas filings that purport to amend a denied petition are successive and require appellate authorization)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir.) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 without prior appellate permission)
Burns v. United States, [citation="152 F. App'x 887"] (11th Cir.) (post-judgment amendment to § 2255 is impermissible; successive-motion principles apply)
Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir.) (substance over form: petitioners cannot avoid AEDPA restrictions by re-labeling filings)
Jones v. United States, 304 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir.) (new § 2255 claims filed after denial cannot be treated as amendments that relate back)
In re Morgan, 717 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir.) (bar on second or successive motions is jurisdictional)
Whitaker v. City of Houston, 963 F.2d 831 (5th Cir.) (relation-back doctrine inapplicable when initial petition was dismissed)
Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (relation-back doctrine inapplicable after dismissal of initial petition)