Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00384/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00384-0/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

BRADLEY H. PEMBERTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:12cv384-WHA

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

The petitioner, BradleyH. Pemberton, has filed a pro se pleading with this court, selfstyled as a “Motion to Correct Structural Errors and Vacate the Conviction,” in which he

asserts claims challenging the validity of his 2011 convictions and sentence for wire fraud,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1028A(a)(1). (Doc. No. 1.)

The law is settled that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 affords the exclusive remedy for challenging

a federal 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, th

1134 (5 Cir. 1981); Lane v. Hanberry, 601 F.2d 805 (5 Cir. 1979). The remedy afforded th th

by § 2255 is not deemed 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. th th

1998). Moreover, “[t]he remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective

Case 2:12-cv-00384-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 4
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

Pemberton has been tried, convicted, and sentenced. His convictions and sentence

were affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Pemberton, No. 11-12731 (11 Cir. Jun. th

26, 2012). The claims he now seeks to advance may properly be presented at this time 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 Pemberton’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 Pemberton of its intention

to recharacterize his pleading (Doc. No. 1) as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court cautions Pemberton that such

recharacterization renders this motion and anysubsequent § 2255 motion filed with this court

susceptible to each of the procedural limitations imposed upon § 2255 motions. Specifically,

Pemberton 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

2

Case 2:12-cv-00384-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 4
post-conviction motions.1

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

ORDERED that on or before July 30, 2012, Pemberton 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 sentence imposed upon him by this court;

or

3. Withdraw his motion.

Pemberton 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

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

Because this court will not proceed on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion before the directappeal process has concluded, Pemberton shall also advise this court whether he has filed

an application for rehearing regarding the Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming his

“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.” 28 U.S.C. §

1

2255(f). 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

Case 2:12-cv-00384-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 4
convictions and sentence.

In order to assist Pemberton in presenting any claims he wishes to assert in a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Pemberton with the

form used for filing a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.

Done this 28 day of June, 2012. th

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00384-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/28/12 Page 4 of 4