Document: 540 U.S. 375 CASTROv.UNITED STATES No. 02-6683. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 15, 2003. Decided December In 1994, petitioner Castro attacked his federal drug conviction in a pro se motion for new trial pursuant to Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 33. The Government responded that the claims were more cognizable as habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. District denied Castro's on merits, referring it both 33 and 2255 motion. did not challenge this recharacterization appeal, Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed. 1997, Castro, again se, filed raising, inter alia, claim ineffective assistance counsel. motion, but remanded consider, among other things, whether was second appointed counsel, determined 1997 indeed (the 1994 being first), dismissed failure comply with 2255's requirement obtain Appeals' permission file "second or successive" Held: 1. This Court's review is barred by "grant denial an authorization court appeals successive application . shall be subject [certiorari] petition," 2244(b)(3)(E). nowhere asked grant, denied, such authorization. Contrary Government's position, court's statement petition could meet requirements petitions cannot taken statutorily relevant "denial" request made. Even accepting characterization, argument would founder because certiorari petition's "subject" Circuit's "denial," lower courts' refusal recognize first. Moreover, reading statute suggests create procedural anomalies, allowing where decision disfavors, denying favors, Government; close doors class petitioners without any clear indication Congress' intent; difficult reconcile principle reads limitations its jurisdiction narrowly. Pp. 379-381. 2. A recharacterize litigant's first unless informs litigant intent recharacterize, warns means subsequent will restrictions motions, provides opportunity withdraw amend so contains all he believes has. If these warnings are given, considered have become purposes applying later motions law's restrictions. Nine Circuits placed limits recharacterization, no one here contests lawfulness judicially created requirement. 381-383. 3. Because failed give prescribed warnings, one. argues appeal makes valid matter "law case." And, according Government, since valid, second, disagrees. point warning help understand only (1) should also (2) contest say, appeal. lack prevents making informed judgment both. simply underscores practical importance providing warning. Hence, unwarned count provision takes assuming law case doctrine applies here, expresses common judicial practice; does limit power. 383-384. 290 F. 3d 1270, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, SCALIA THOMAS, joined Parts I II. SCALIA, concurring part judgment, post, p. 385. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Michael G. Frick, appointment ante, 807, argued cause briefs petitioner. Dan Himmelfarb With him brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, Nina Goodman.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 Under longstanding practice, sometimes treats relief prisoner has labeled differently. Such can serious consequences prisoner, subjects restrictive conditions imposes upon (but first) 2255, ¶ 8. light consequences, we hold restrictions, withdraw, amend, filing. Where things done, recharacterized provision. 2 * focuses two Hernan O'Ryan acting court. He 1997. 3 facts surrounding following: On July 5, attacking conviction, called trial. See Fed. Crim. Proc. 4 response, said "more properly cognizable" corpus claims, i.e., made authority But, added, object considering having invoked 5 (3) merits. accompanying opinion, generally referred motion; twice well. App. 137-144. 6 (4) still appealed, 7 (5) Appeals It one-paragraph order ruling based Judgt. reported at 82 429 (CA11 1996); 147. B 8 9 April 18, what included raised including 10 appealed; further consideration ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. consider whether, rather than 11 remand, counsel Castro. then decided first). And (namely, motion). granted certificate determination. 2253(c)(1). 12 affirmed split (2-to-1) vote. 1270 (2002). majority "suggested" "urged" district courts future "warn prisoners provide them dismiss their filings." Id., 1273, 1274. But held do legally undermine recharacterization. current 13 Other different approach. E. g., States v. Palmer, 296 1135, 1145-1147 (CADC 2002) (announcing rule requiring notify litigants prior refusing find before notice lacking). We consequently certiorari. II 14 begin jurisdictional matter. parties relevance statutes says 15 writ certiorari." 16 After receiving parties' responses, conclude bar our here. 17 concern "authorization application." certified question second. first; reverse dismissal 18 had effect application" motions. 3d, 1273. For reason, concludes, falls within scope Brief 16. 19 view, however, stretches words too far. Given context, take if, argument's sake, accept nonetheless statute's must petition. Appeals'"denial authorization." first, That very question. Cf. Adamo Wrecking Co. States, 434 275, 282-283 (1978) (statute barring agency "emission standard" criminal regulation standard"). 20 produce troublesome results. Government. Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 523 637, 641-642 (1998) (allowing successive"). seeking intent. Felker Turpin, 518 651, 660-661 (1996). conclusion prove basic "read narrowly." Utah Evans, 536 452, 463 21 power claim, turn merits III 22 ignore legal label attaches place category. See, e. Raineri 233 96, 100 (CA1 2000); Detrich, 940 2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); Miller, 197 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines 423 526, 528, n. (CA4 1970); Santora, 711 41, 42 (CA5 1983); McDowell, 305 12, (CA6 1962); Henderson 264 709, (CA7 2001); McIntyre 508 403, (CA8 1975) (per curiam); Eatinger, 902 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) Kelly, 235 1238, 1242 (CA10 Jordan, 915 622, 625 1990); Tindle, 522 689, 693 curiam). They may avoid unnecessary dismissal, id., 692-693, inappropriately stringent formal labeling requirements, see Haines Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520 (1972) curiam), better correspondence between substance motion's underlying basis, Hughes Rowe, 449 (1980) Andrews 373 334 (1963). 23 address aspect namely, certain nine Those that, recharacterizing filing previously bear label, make significantly another concluded — about thereby giving Adams 155 F.3d 582, 583 1998) supra, 646-647 (CA3); Emmanuel, 288 2002); re Shelton, 295 620, 622 710-711 (CA7); Morales 304 764, 767 Seesing, 234 456, 1240-1241 (CA10); 1146 (CADC); 1274 (case below) (suggesting warnings). 24 No Appellate 47 adequate practice. 42. regulate practice through "the exercise" "supervisory powers" over Judiciary. McNabb 318 332, 340-341 (1943). notes limiting approximately Courts "is likely reduce simplify litigation questions often quite difficult." 25 agree suggestions. hold, almost every already held, powers limited following way: 26 limitation when recharacterizes circumstances intends pleading, warn fails so, IV 27 kind described. power" determinations normally apply, like decisions, retroactively, least determination McNabb, 347 (applying supervisory Court). given holding Part III, there something special case. special: According fact 29 agree. treat (based recharacterization) found difference. 1147; Henderson, 711-712; Raineri, 100; 622. surprising, "lack warning" respect latter just former. Indeed, provision, does, not, 30 pose insurmountable obstacle reaching conclusion. Assuming sake "expresses" "practice"; "limit" Messenger Anderson, 225 436, 444 (1912) (Holmes, J.). prohibit from disregarding earlier appropriate which, reasons set forth, be. 31 vacated, proceedings consistent opinion. 32 So ordered. Notes: Paul Mogin Lisa B. Kemler National Association Defense Lawyers amicus curiae urging reversal. whom THOMAS joins, judgment. concur status neither nor necessarily resolved write separately disagree laissez-faire attitude toward promulgates procedure followed if desires against thepro litigation. (This procedure, way, ignored impunity bent aiding costs; consequence litigants' submissions deemed successive.") occur, contrary routine employed "to dismissal," requirements," basis." Ante, 381-382. been recharacterized, discussion scrupulously avoids placing permitted recharacterize. particularly regrettable include option insist filed; gives scant might meritorious ground contesting my approach little regard exceptional nature adversarial system, neglects harm caused even newly minted procedure. mutation allegations complaint less standards pleadings drafted lawyers." "Liberal construction" merely embellishment notice-pleading standard forth Rules Civil Procedure, thus general American jurisprudence party who brings suit master decide rely upon." Fair Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 22, (1913). Our adversary system designed around premise know best them, responsible advancing arguments entitling relief. Recharacterization unlike "liberal construction," requires deliberately override choice vehicle paternalistic exception self-determination, born belief "parties better" assumption true litigants. am frankly enamored departure traditional principles. job "better correspondence" basis. principles allowed, certainly occur situation risk patronized harmed assisted intervention. ismore likely, much helped harmed. overriding intervention "First, harm." injustice letting own mistake lie regrettable, incomparably producing prejudice harming always exists into procedurally substantively deficient manner filed. essentially substitutes ability bring now, same (or claim), perhaps stronger evidence. burdened imposed Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, 110 Stat. 1214. whose non-§ grounds end up losers particular actions, loser off stuck never inadequate response state doing necessary grant Ensuring met enmesh fact- labor-intensive inquiries. inefficient use resources analyze brought questionable determine entitlement turns resolution disputed facts. after expenditure effort prejudicing litigant: words, fully try they predict protect possible adverse flow unable sort protection, all. available though prescribe it. today relieves (to wit, causing successive") prescribes. reach result reason. me involved, surely running unjustified nothing whatever gained matter, weaker presented therefore unquestionably improper, relieved consequences. Accordingly,

Category: 0