Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00678/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00678-0/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

JACQUELINE SLATON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:13cv678-MHT

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

The Petitioner, Jacqueline Slaton, has filed a pro se pleading with this court, selfstyled as a “Motion to Contest the Applicability of Guidelines Enforcements,” in which she

asserts claims challenging the sentence imposed by this court in October 2012 following her

conviction on charges of fraud and aggravated identity theft. (Doc. No. 2.)

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

Bradshawv. 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

merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision.” In re

Case 2:13-cv-00678-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 3
Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4 Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). th

The claims Slaton 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 concludes th

that Slaton’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 Slaton of its intention to

recharacterize her pleading (Doc. No. 2) as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court CAUTIONS Slaton that such

recharacterization renders this motion and any subsequent § 2255 motion filed with this court

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

Slaton is cautioned that the instant motion and any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject

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

post-conviction motions.1

“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).

2

Case 2:13-cv-00678-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 3
In further compliance with the requirements of Castro, it is

ORDERED that on or before October 23 2013, Slaton shall advise this court

whether she seeks to do one of the following:

(1) have her motion (Doc. No. 2) construed as a § 2255 motion as filed and proceed

before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the claims presented in the motion;

(2) amend her motion to assert any additional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

on which she wishes to challenge her conviction and sentence; or

(3) withdraw her motion.

Slaton is CAUTIONED that if she fails to file a response in compliance with this

order, which requires that she advise the court that she 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 her original motion (Doc. No. 2).

In order to assist Slaton in presenting any claims she wishes to assert in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Slaton with the form used for

filing a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Done this 23 day of September, 2013. rd

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00678-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 3