United States v. Carlos Granda, 21-14048

Background

Carlos Granda, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s denial with prejudice of three post-judgment motions: (1) for bond pending a motion to dismiss his 2007 superseding indictment, (2) to set aside his original criminal judgment for fraud on the court, and (3) to alter or amend the order denying the first two motions.
Granda argued the 2007 superseding indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it lacked the grand jury foreperson’s signature.
The government moved for summary affirmance of the district court’s orders and for a stay of the briefing schedule, arguing no substantial question existed and the district court properly denied the motions.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Granda’s filings, construed the post-judgment filings as successive §2255 collateral attacks, and examined whether the alleged indictment defect fit within the §2255 saving clause (§2241 path).
The court concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate successive §2255 motions because Granda previously filed two §2255 motions denied on the merits and had not obtained court-of-appeals authorization to file another; it also held the indictment-signature claim did not fall within the saving clause.
The Eleventh Circuit construed the district court’s denial as a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, summarily affirmed, and denied as an abuse-of-discretion Granda’s motion to alter or amend because it merely reiterated prior arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Granda’s post-judgment motions	Granda: motions challenge validity of indictment and judgment; district court should adjudicate them	Govt: motions are successive collateral attacks (§2255) and court lacks jurisdiction without our authorization	Held: motions are successive §2255; district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal is without prejudice
Whether the motions should be construed as §2255 motions	Granda: styled differently (bond; set aside); substance challenges indictment/judgment	Govt: substance controls; they are collateral attacks cognizable only under §2255	Held: court looks beyond labels and construes them as §2255 motions
Whether the indictment was jurisdictionally defective for lacking grand-jury foreperson signature	Granda: superseding indictment invalid for missing foreperson signature, so conviction void	Govt: even if argued, claim does not fall within the §2255 saving clause to permit §2241 relief here; procedural bars apply	Held: indictment-signature claim is not saved under §2241 saving clause; cannot be raised in unauthorized successive §2255
Whether the motion to alter or amend was properly denied	Granda: sought reconsideration of denial on substantive grounds	Govt: motion repeats prior arguments and is not proper reconsideration	Held: denial was not an abuse of discretion because it merely rehashed prior arguments

Key Cases Cited

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969) (standard for summary disposition)
In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2016) (district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain unauthorized successive §2255)
Amodeo v. Coleman, 984 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining the §2255 saving clause categories permitting §2241 relief)
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (§2255 is primary collateral remedy; saving clause context)
United States v. Thompson, 702 F.3d 604 (11th Cir. 2012) (indictment jurisdictional challenges cannot be forfeited)
United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (construe pro se filings by substance; habeas/§2255 framework)
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (limits on motions for reconsideration)
Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirmance permitted where reasons for dismissal are readily apparent)