United States v. Samuel Knowles , 683 F. App'x 736 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-15080 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15080
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:00-cr-00425-JIC-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL KNOWLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 23, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Knowles, proceeding pro se, seeks to challenge the district court’s
dismissal of his “independent action” for declaratory judgment, brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which sought to vacate for lack of jurisdiction his 2008
Case: 16-15080 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 2 of 5
conviction and 420-month sentence for conspiracy to import cocaine and
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. In the direct appeal of the
underlying 2008 criminal action, we rejected Knowles’s argument that his 2006
extradition from the Bahamas to the United States was contrary to the Extradition
Treaty. United States v. Knowles, 390 F. App’x 915, 927-29 (11th Cir. 2010).
Thereafter, in 2011, the district court denied Knowles’s motion to vacate his
sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising various ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims. In 2016, Knowles filed the instant pro se declaratory judgment
action, arguing that the district court, in his earlier criminal case, lacked personal
jurisdiction over him because his extradition to the United States from the
Bahamas contravened international law and the Constitution. The district court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Knowles’ instant declaratory judgment
action and dismissed it. On appeal, Knowles again argues that the district court
lacked personal jurisdiction over him in the criminal case because he was
improperly extradited to the United States. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo questions concerning the jurisdiction of the district
court. United States v. Oliver, 148 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998).
Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, “[i]n a case of actual controversy
within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an
appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
2
Case: 16-15080 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 3 of 5
interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could
be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself
confer jurisdiction upon federal courts. Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer
Resources, Inc., 542 F.3d 859, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2008). Rather, it “allow[s]
parties to precipitate suits that otherwise might need to wait for the declaratory
relief defendant to bring a coercive action.” Household Bank v. JFS Grp., 320
F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). Thus, in the context of a
declaratory judgment action, we must determine “whether, absent the availability
of declaratory relief, the instant case could nonetheless have been brought in
federal court.” Stuart Weitzman, 542 F.3d at 862 (quotation omitted).
Collateral attacks on the legality of a federal sentence typically must be
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th
Cir. 2005). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or 1996
(“AEDPA”), a prisoner who previously filed a § 2255 motion must apply for and
obtain authorization from a court of appeals before filing a second or successive §
2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Without this prior
authorization, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive §
2255 motion. United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005).
The extradition process is a means by which the United States obtains
personal jurisdiction over a defendant. United States v. Isaac Marquez, 594 F.3d
3
 Case: 16-15080 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 4 of 5
855, 858 (11th Cir. 2010). A defendant can waive a challenge to the court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction, but he cannot waive objections to subject matter
jurisdiction. See id. at 858 n.4.
Here, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to
entertain Knowles’s declaratory judgment action. Knowles styled this action as
one brought pursuant to § 2201, but § 2201 does not confer jurisdiction on a
federal court. See Stuart Weitzman, 542 F.3d at 861-62. Moreover, there is no
other avenue for Knowles to have brought this case in federal court. While
Knowles asserts that he is not seeking to challenge his conviction, in his pleadings
before the district court, he specifically requested that the court issue a judgment
vacating his convictions and sentences. Accordingly, he is, in fact, challenging his
conviction and sentence based on the trial court’s alleged lack of personal
jurisdiction. Although a federal prisoner may attack his conviction through a §
2255 motion, Knowles has already filed a § 2255 motion, so he needed to obtain
permission from this Court to file a new motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A),
2255(h). Because Knowles did not receive permission from this Court to file a
successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his
challenge through § 2255. See Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175.
As for Knowles’s argument that we still may address his claim because he is
asserting a lack of jurisdiction, it is without merit. We have recognized that a
4
Case: 16-15080 Date Filed: 03/23/2017 Page: 5 of 5
defendant cannot waive a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. See Isaac
Marquez, 594 at 858 n.4. However, Knowles’s jurisdictional claim is a challenge
to personal jurisdiction, since it is centered on his extradition. See id. at 858.
Objections to personal jurisdiction can be waived. Id. at 858 n.4. Accordingly,
Knowles cannot rely on an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction in the underlying
criminal suit to assert that the district court had jurisdiction over this declaratory
judgment action.
AFFIRMED.
5