Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10282
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00502-JSM-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 4, 2020)
Before GRANT, LUCK and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Priscilla Ann Ellis appeals from the district court’s denial of seven post-
conviction motions for the removal of Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”)
Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 2 of 5
on her custodial sentence, along with other relief. On appeal, the government has
moved to dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, for summary
affirmance in part, and to stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of its
motion.
I.
The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Priscilla Ellis appealed from the
district court’s order denying seven miscellaneous motions generally related to
altering the SAMs imposed on her current custodial sentence. Nonetheless,
portions of her merits brief on appeal appear to challenge the validity of her
underlying convictions and sentences. To the extent these issues involving the
validity of her convictions and sentences were raised in Ellis’s brief, we dismiss
this appeal as duplicative because those issues are or have been the subject of other
appeals. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,
449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981)
(noting “that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal
following final judgment on the merits”); United States v. Arlt,
567 F.2d 1295,
1297 (5th Cir. 1978) 1 (noting that an “[a]ppellant is not entitled to two appeals”).
The government’s remaining arguments in support of dismissal are denied.
1
We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981.
Bonner v. City of Pritchard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
2
Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 3 of 5
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
“[W]e may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied
upon by the district court.” United States v. Al-Arian,
514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th
Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Access Now, Inc. v.
Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, both the district court and our Court are
bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law we made on a prior appeal of the
same case unless “(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence,
(2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to that
issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest
injustice.” United States v. Stinson,
97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996).
3
Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 4 of 5
We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to Ellis’s
challenges to the SAMs and her conditions of confinement because there is no
substantial question that Ellis’s challenges are barred by the law-of-the-case
doctrine. See Groendyke Transp.,
Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Specifically, Ellis raised
the same challenges to her SAMs and the conditions of her confinement in appeal
no. 19-12452 and, in that appeal, we granted summary affirmance on the ground
that, had those claims been brought under § 2241, the district court lacked
jurisdiction over them and, had she brought them under Bivens, 2 the district judge
was entitled to absolute immunity. Unlike in that case, the district court here implied
that it viewed Ellis’s claims as falling under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, the law-
of-the-case doctrine bars consideration of Ellis’s claims again where we previously
decided, in the same case, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider her
challenges to her SAMs under § 2241. See
Stinson, 97 F.3d at 469. Further, none
of the exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine apply and Ellis has not argued that
they do. And although the district court did not base its ruling on the law-of-the-
case doctrine, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See
Al-Arian,
514 F.3d at 1189.
Finally, to the extent that Ellis bases her challenge on Bivens, she has also
waived our consideration of that argument by raising it for the first time on appeal
2
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
4
Case: 20-10282 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 Page: 5 of 5
since she did not discuss Bivens in any of the seven motions relevant to this appeal.
See Access Now,
Inc., 385 F.3d at 1331. Thus, as there is no substantial question as
to the outcome of the case, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary
affirmance as to Ellis’s challenges to the SAMs and conditions of confinement. See
Groendyke Transp.,
Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, we DENY the
government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule, and all other pending motions,
as moot.
5
