In In re Bowe, No. 24-11704 (Feb. 6, 2026) (Ed Carnes, Grant, Wilson), the Eleventh Circuit granted Bowe’s request for authorization to file a second or successive 2255 motion challenging his 924(c) conviction based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis.
This case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which held that the same-claim bar in 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1) did not apply to 2255 motions filed by federal prisoners, abrogating the Eleventh Circuit’s contrary precedent in In re Baptiste. Because the Eleventh Circuit had previously relied on 2244(b)(1) to deny Bowe authorization, the Supreme Court remanded for the Eleventh Circuit to consider his authorization request anew without considering 2244(b)(1).
In that regard, the Eleventh Circuit held that Bowe made a prima facie showing satisfying the gatekeeping requirements in 2255(h)(2). The Eleventh Circuit had previously held that Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law made retractive by the Supreme Court. And the Court held that Bowe made a prima facie showing under Davis because neither of his 924(c) predicates—conspiracy and attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery—qualified as “crime of violence” after the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Davis (invalidating 924(c)’s residual clause) and Taylor (holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery did not satisfy 924(c)’s elements clause). The Eleventh Circuit therefore authorized Bowe to file a second or successive 2255 motion.
The Court declined to opine on whether Bowe was entitled to relief or whether his Davis claim was timely, leaving those matters to the district court to address in the first instance.
Eleventh Circuit opinion here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411704.pdf
Supreme Court opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-5438_o7kq.pdf
Congratulations to AFPDs Andrew Adler & Janice Bergmann for their tremendous work on behalf of Mr. Bowe.