Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Kieron Matthew Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed pro se in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Although such an order is not final, for the reasons stated by the majority of our sister courts that have addressed the issue, we proceed under the assumption that an order denying a civil litigant’s right to self-representation is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See, e.g., Devine v. Indian River Cty. Sck Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases), abrogated in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 167 L.Ed.2d 904 (2007). The district court offered no explanation for denying Williams’ motion to proceed pro se. Because, on the current record, we are unable to discern any independent rationale supporting the district court’s order, we cannot assess the propriety of the court’s ruling.

Consequently, we vacate the district court’s order and remand to allow the district court to explain or reassess its ruling. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED