Castro v. United States
Castro was convicted in federal court on drug possession and trafficking charges and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. The district court determined that Castro’s motion was more properly raised as a habeas corpus petition that asked the court’s review for unlawful imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and re-characterized it as such. The court then denied Castro’s motion. Two years later, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which prevented federal prisoners from bringing successive habeas petitions under § 2255 except in cases with newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law. After the AEDPA’s enactment, Castro filed a § 2255 petition claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court held Castro’s motion inadmissible as a second habeas petition under AEDPA. The court of appeals initially reversed but then vacated that decision, finding that the AEDPA did not create an exception allowing the admission of a second habeas petition when the court had re-characterized the first one. The Supreme Court accepted review and asked the parties to prepare arguments on the additional question of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Questions Presented:
1. When a U.S. District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post-conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, does such re-characterization make the
prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a § 2255 petition a "second or successive petition" within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)?
2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision affirming the dismissal of a § 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus as second or successive?
