# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 22 93

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es Edward Sm it h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ray H ob bs , Direc to r, Arka ns as Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - P in e Bl uf f

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 28 , 20 12 Fil ed : Oct ob er 3 1, 2 01 2 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ark an sa s pr is on er Ja m es Sm it h ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di sm is sa l of hi s pr o se 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n th at was rech arac te riz ed as a fir st 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on by th e di st ric t co ur t

. U p o n ou r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd

, it is ap pa ren t th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr ov id e Sm it h wit h pr op er no ti ce, warn in gs , an d an op po rtu ni ty

t o w i t hd raw hi s pl ead in gs pr io r to rech arac te riz in g hi s act io n as a fir st § 2 2 5 4pe ti ti on

. See Cas tro v. Uni te d St at es , 54 0 U.S. 37 5, 38 2- 83 (2 00 3) (co ur t th at wis he s

to rech arac te riz e pr o se li ti ga nt ’s pl ead in g as fir st 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n m us t (1 )

no ti fy li ti ga nt of co ur t’s in te nt , ( 2) warn li ti ga nt th at rech arac t e r iz at io n m ean s th at

su bs eq ue nt § 22 55 mo t i on wil l be su bjec t to res tri ct io ns on “ se co nd or su cces si ve ”

m ot io ns , an d (3 ) gi ve li ti ga nt op po rtu ni ty to wit hd raw m ot io n or to am en d it to
in cl ud e al l § 22 55 cl ai m s) ; se e al so Mo ral es v. Uni te d St at es , 30 4 F.3 d 76 4, 76 7 (8 th
Ci r. 20 02 ) (rev ers in g an d rem an di ng whe re di st ric t co ur t recl as si fie d pr o se li ti ga nt ’s

p l e ad in g as fir st § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut no ti ce, warn in gs , an d op po rtu ni ty t o wit hd raw).

Acco rd in gl y , we va cat e an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to pr ov id e Sm it h wit h
Cas tro no ti ce. The ap pl ic at io n f o r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y is de ni ed as

un ne ces sa ry

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

In Ca st ro v. Uni te d St at es , 54 0 U.S. 37 5 (2 00 3)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d
th at “ [f]ede ral co ur ts so m et im es wil l ig no re th e le ga l la be l th at a p r o s e l i t ig an t

at ta ch es to a m ot io n an d rech arac te riz e th e m ot io n in or de r to pl ace i t w i t h i n a d i f f e r e n t l e ga l cat eg or y .” Id

. at 38 1. One reas on fo r su ch rech arac te riz at io n is “ to

crea te a be tt er co rres po nd en ce be twee n th e su bs ta nc e of a pr o se m ot io n’s cl ai m an d
it s un de rlyin g le ga l ba si s.” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t fo ll owe d th at co ur se he re whe n it
di r e c t ed th e cl erk to de si gn at e Ja m es Edwar d Sm it h’s act io n as a ha be as co rp us
pe ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54
, rat he r th an as a ci vi l rig ht s act io n br ou gh t un de r 42
U.S.C. § 19 83
, as Sm it h ha d de no m in at ed it

. R. Doc

. 3. As th e m ag is tra te jud ge la te r

e x p l a in ed

, Sm it h “ so ug ht in jun ct iv e rel ie f so le ly co nc ern in g th e ex ecu ti on of h i s

s e n t e nc e,” an d § 19 83 “ ‘m us t y ie ld to th e m or e sp eci fic ha be as st at ut e, wit h i t s
at te nd an t pr oc ed ur al an d ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts , whe re an in m at e se ek s in jun ct iv e rel ie f ch al le ng in g th e fact of hi s co nv ic ti on or th e du rat io n of hi s se nt en ce.’” R. Doc

. 50
, at 1 (q uo ti ng Nel

so n v. Ca mpb el l

, 54 1 U.S. 63 7, 64 3 (20 04 )). The di st ric t co ur t

-2

-th en di sm is se d Sm it h’s rech arac te riz ed ha be as pe ti ti on an d de ni ed Sm i t h’s

ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y

.

Ca st ro he ld th at whe n a di st ric t co ur t rech arac te riz es a pr o se li ti ga nt ’s m ot io n

as a fir st § 22 55 mo t i o n , th e co ur t m us t no ti fy th e li ti ga nt , warn hi m th at an y

su bs eq ue nt § 22 55 moti on wil l be su bjec t to th e res tri ct io ns on “ se co nd or

su cces si ve ” m ot i o n s , an d pr ov id e th e li ti ga nt wit h an op po rtu ni ty to wit hd raw or

am en d th e m ot io n. 54 0 U.S. at 38 3. “ If th e co ur t fai ls to do so , th e m ot io n can no t be

co ns id ered to ha ve be co m e a § 22 55 m ot io n fo r pu rp os es of ap pl yi ng to la te r mot io ns th e la w’s ‘s eco nd or su cces si ve’ re st ri ct io ns

. ” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t th us ad op te d wha t th is co ur t in Mor al es v. Uni te d St at es , 30 4 F

. 3 d 76 4 (8 th
Ci r. 20 02 ), de sc rib ed as “ a rem e di al ap pr oa ch ,” to wit : “ whe n de ci di ng whe th er a § 22 55 m ot io n is se co nd or su cces si ve , a pr io r m is cel la ne ou s m ot io n th at th e di st ric t

co ur t recl as si fie d as a § 22 55 m ot io n wil l no t be co un te d as a fir st § 22 55 m ot io n

un le ss th e li t i ga nt was warn ed ab ou t th e co ns eq ue nc es of recl as si fic at io n an d ga ve hi s i nf or m ed co ns en t.” Id . at 7 66 -6 7.

W e m ay as su m e th at Ca st ro ’s li m it at io n o n rech arac te riz at io n als o app li es to
ha be as co rp us p e t i t i o ns un de r § 22 54

. E.g.
, Mar ti n v. Over to n , 39 1 F.3 d 71 0, 71 3 (6 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Tha t th e di st ric t co ur t he re fai le d t o fo ll ow th e Ca st ro pr oc ed ur e, ho wev er, di d no t ta ke th e m ot io n o u t s id e th e sc op e of § 22 54

. Sm it h st il l so ug ht
in jun ct iv e rel ie f co nc ern in g th e ex ecu ti on of hi s se nt en ce— rel ie f th at can on ly be ha d

un de r § 22 54 —an d th e di st ric t co u r t t h u s pr op erl y tre at ed th e m ot io n as a ha be as

co rp us ap pl ic at io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v. La mbr os , 40 4 F.3 d 10 34
, 10 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Mel to n v. Uni te d St at es , 35 9 F.3 d 85 5, 85 7 (7 th C i r. 20 04 ). The di st ric t

co ur t’s fai lu re to gi ve th e “ Ca st ro warn in gs ” m ean s th at if Sm it h were to fil e a se co nd
ha be as co rp us ap pl ic at io n, th e n i t c o u ld no t be tre at ed as a “ se co nd or su cces si ve ”

ap pl ic at io n fo r pu rp os es of th e res tri ct io ns se t fo rth at 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b ). Bu t

no th in g pr ev en te d Sm it h fro m fil in g an ot he r § 22 54 ap pl ic at io n, an d no ot he r rem ed y

-3

-is av ai la bl e fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to fo ll ow th e pr oc e d u r e p res cri be d in

Ca st ro

. Se e W

il li ams v. Uni te d S ta te s , 46 4 F . App ’x 83 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

To ta ke an ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a § 22 54 pe ti ti on , th e pe ti ti on er m us t ha ve

a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. 28 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c)( 1) (A). A cert ifi cat e m ay is su e on ly
if th e a p p li can t ha s m ad e a su bs ta nt ia l sh owi ng of th e de ni al of th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. Id

. § 22 53 (c)( 2)

. The cert ifi cat e req ui rem en t “ m ay no t be ci rcu m ve nt ed
th ro ug h crea ti ve pl ead in g,” La mbr os , 40 4 F.3 d at 10 36
, su ch as by la be li ng th e m at te r

as an act io n br ou gh t un de r § 19 83

. “ A cert ifi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i ty is req ui red to

ap pe al th e de ni al of an y m ot io n th at ef fe ct iv el y or ul ti mat el

y se eks ha be as co rp us or § 22 55 re li ef

.” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. The ab se nc e of no ti ce an d warn in gs pr es cri be d by Ca st ro do es no t rel ie ve Sm it h of th e req ui rem en t th at he m us t ob ta in a cert ifi cat e
to ap pe al th e d is m is sa l o f hi s re ch arac te riz ed § 22 54 pe ti ti on

. W ur zi ng er v. Uni te d
St at es , 30 6 F

. A pp ’x 30 3, 30 5 (7 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Sm it h ha s no t m ad e th e req ui si te
sh owi ng to sat is fy

§ 2 25 3( c), s o t he ap pe al sh ou ld be di sm is se d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-