Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00149/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

QUINCY O’NEAL GREEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:10cv149-WKW

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

On or around February 16, 2010, the pro se petitioner, Quincy O’Neal Green

(“Green”), filed what he purports to be a “Writ of Error Audita Querela[,] Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 1651,” which contains a heading stating “This Is Not a Motion Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.” (Doc. No. 1.) In this pleading, Green alleges, among other things, that his sentence

for uttering counterfeit currency was imposed in violation of United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), and that consequently he is entitled to be resentenced. In addition, Green

suggests that the sentence imposed by the district court violated the terms of the plea

agreement in his case.

A writ of audita querela may not be granted when relief is cognizable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11 Cir. 2005). The law is well th

settled that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 affords the exclusive remedy for challenging a conviction and

sentence, unless the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d

164, 166 (10 Cir. 1996); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir. 1981); Lane th th

Case 2:10-cv-00149-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 4
2

v. Hanberry, 601 F.2d 805 (5 Cir. 1979). The remedy afforded by § 2255 is not deemed th

inadequate or ineffective merely because an inmate’s motion is barred by the applicable

one-year period of limitation or by the gatekeeping provision on successive petitions

contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244(b)(3)(A). See Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236,

1244 (11 Cir. 1999); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 608 (7 Cir. 1998). Moreover, “[t]he th th

remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an

individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision.” In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192,

1194 n.5 (4 Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). th

Consequently, notwithstanding O’Neal’sstatement that his pleading “Is Not a Motion

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” the claims O’Neal seeks to advance may properly be

presented only in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. “Federal courts have long recognized that they

have an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine

whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.”

United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11 Cir. 1990). Accordingly, this court th

concludes that O’Neal’s instant pleading should be construed as a motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In light of the foregoing, and in compliance with the requirements of Castro v. United

States, 540 U.S. 375, 382-83 (2003), the court hereby advises O’Neal of its intention to

recharacterize his pleading as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court cautions O’Neal that such recharacterization

Case 2:10-cv-00149-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 4
“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 1

¶6. Further, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) requires that “[b]efore a second or successive [28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion] ... is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A).

3

renders this motion and any subsequent § 2255 motion filed with this court susceptible to

each of the procedural limitations imposed upon § 2255 motions. Specifically, O’Neal is

cautioned that the instant motion and any subsequent § 2255 motion shall be subject to the

one-year period of limitation and the successive petition bar applicable to post-conviction

motions.1

In further compliance with the requirements of Castro, supra, it is

ORDERED that on or before March 22, 2010, O’Neal shall advise this court

whether he seeks to do one of the following:

1. Proceed before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on those claims presented

in his motion (Doc. No. 1);

2. Amend his motion to assert any additional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on

which he wishes to challenge the convictions and sentences imposed upon him by this court;

or

3. Withdraw his motion.

O’Neal is CAUTIONED that if he fails to file a response in compliance with this

order, which requires that he advise the court that he wishes to do one of the above, this

cause shall proceed as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, with the court considering only

Case 2:10-cv-00149-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 4
O’Neal is advised that the Supreme Court in Castro did not hold that a district court is 2

prevented from recharacterizing a pro se petitioner’s pleading as § 2255 motion without the

petitioner’s consent, only that it must first provide warnings of the impact of recharacterization and

an opportunity to withdraw or amend the motion.

4

those claims presented in his original motion (Doc. No. 1).2

Done this 26 day of February, 2010. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00149-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 4