Paulino Granda v. United States
702 F. App'x 938
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Paulino Granda, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of audita querela challenging sentence enhancements as unconstitutional.
- Granda had previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that was dismissed as time-barred, so he had not obtained leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
- The district court denied the audita querela petition, noting the claims were cognizable under § 2255 and that it lacked jurisdiction to treat the filing as a successive § 2255 without appellate authorization.
- Granda argued the denial violated the Suspension Clause because he had no other avenue for relief after his § 2255 was time-barred.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether audita querela could be used to challenge the sentence and affirmed the district court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of audita querela to challenge sentence | Granda sought audita querela to attack sentence enhancements | Courts: audita querela is unavailable where § 2255 provides relief | Denied — audita querela not available for claims cognizable under § 2255 |
| Proper remedy for constitutional attack on sentence | Granda asserted audita querela was his only remaining remedy | Government: § 2255 is the proper avenue even if prior § 2255 was time-barred | Held for Govt — constitutional challenges to sentence must proceed via § 2255 |
| District court jurisdiction to treat petition as § 2255 | Granda contended court should consider merits despite prior § 2255 dismissal | Court: lacks jurisdiction to consider a second/successive § 2255 without circuit leave | Held for Govt — district court lacked jurisdiction to hear successive § 2255 |
| Suspension Clause claim | Granda argued denial violated Suspension Clause because no other relief existed | Govt: inability to file successive § 2255 does not violate Suspension Clause | Held for Govt — no Suspension Clause violation in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1996) (All Writs Act yields to specific statutory remedies)
- United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2005) (audita querela unavailable where § 2255 provides relief)
- Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions without circuit authorization)
- McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. en banc 2017) (refusing to find a Suspension Clause violation when a prisoner cannot file successive collateral attacks)