[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12891 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEB 1, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:98-cr-00117-ASG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFRED WAYNE LEE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 1, 2012)
Before BARKETT, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Wayne Lee, who is serving a 210-month sentence for possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon, appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his
post-judgment motion for an injunction.
Seeking to prohibit prison officials from collecting his DNA pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 14135a following his conviction, Lee filed a motion in his criminal case
purportedly in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The district
court denied this motion without any explanation. One reason for the denial might
have been the district court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider the motion given that
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern only in civil actions. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 1 (providing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure in
all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts”); United
States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that a criminal
defendant may not use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to challenge a
criminal sentence).
Yet, even if the district court lacked jurisdiction over this motion because of
Lee’s procedural error, the district court’s special obligation to pro se defendants
required it “to look behind the label” of the motion “and determine whether the
motion [was], in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory
framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). The
2
district court’s order does not reflect its effort in this regard.1 We therefore vacate
the district court’s order and remand in order that we may have the benefit of the
district court’s evaluation of the substance of Lee’s motion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
1
We recognize the possibility that Lee may have intended to file a separate civil suit
seeking an injunction. If the district court construes Lee’s motion to reflect this intent, Lee’s
motion could be denied without prejudice to file a civil action seeking injunctive relief.
3