28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) provides the procedures by which inmates request, and federal appellate courts grant, permission to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. Under § 2244(b)(3)(C), an appellate court may grant an inmate permission to file such a motion only if the inmate makes a "prima facie showing" the he satisfies the requirements of that subsection. And under § 2244(b)(3)(E), these determinations are essentially appeal proof —they cannot be reconsidered en banc or by this Court.

Typically, appellate courts rule on these applications within 30 days based solely on a constrained form filled out by a pro se inmate. And usually, that is not a problem because these courts are simply determining whether an inmate has made a "prima facie showing." The Eleventh Circuit, however, is unusual in how they rule on these applications. Instead of simply determining whether an inmate has made a "prima facie showing," the Eleventh Circuit routinely uses this process to issue published rulings on the merits of open legal questions (SOS orders). What's more, the en banc Eleventh Circuit, in a deeply contentious and fractured opinion, held that such orders are binding in all later appeals. United States v. St. Hubert, 918 F.3d 1174 (2019) (en banc). The Eleventh Circuit's use of this process is highly unusual and deeply consequential. It affects hundreds of individuals now and into the future. Given the en banc court's recent decision in St. Hubert, this petition present two questions about this process.

First, does the Eleventh Circuit exceed its statutory mandate under § 2244(b)(3)(C) to determine only whether an inmate has made a "prima facie showing" when it issues SOS orders to resolve the merits of open legal questions and treat those orders as binding precedent in later appeals?

And second, did the Eleventh Circuit violate Mr. Robinson's constitutional right to due process by treating an improperly issued SOS order as binding precedent in his appeal?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit exceeded its statutory mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) when it issued published rulings on the merits of open legal questions and treated those rulings as binding precedent in later appeals