Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2014cv01911/880114/3
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 19:14:23
Document Index: 293303909

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 3624']

ORDER, Movant's 1 Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 is denied and the civil action opened in connection with this Motion is dismissed; the Clerk must enter judgment accordingly, re: CR 08-1320-PHX-DGC for Rodriguez-Cardoza v. USA :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
Rodriguez-Cardoza v. USA
ORDER, Movant's 1 Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 is denied and the civil action opened in connection with this Motion is dismissed; the Clerk must enter judgment accordingly, re: CR 08-1320-PHX-DGC. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/29/14. (REW)
No. CV 14-1911-PHX-DGC (DKD)
CR 08-1320-PHX-DGC
Cesar Rodriguez-Cardoza,
Movant Cesar Rodriguez-Cardoza, who is confined in the Central Arizona
Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Motion for Sentence Relief
Under the Federal Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003. The Court
will deny the Motion.
This matter has been opened as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. However, Movant’s Motion does not refer to § 2255. Nor does he refer to any
other jurisdictional basis for his Motion. Although the Court may construe a pro se
motion as a § 2255 motion, it may not do so without first giving certain warnings to the
movant. In Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), the Supreme Court held a
district court may not recharacterize a motion as a defendant’s first § 2255 motion
without first warning him that the recharacterization will subject subsequent § 2255
motions to the law’s “second or successive” restrictions and allowing him an opportunity
to withdraw or to amend the motion. However, even if the Court provided Movant with
the requisite Castro warning, it would not recharacterize this matter as a motion brought
under § 2255 because his claim for relief is frivolous.
In his Motion, Movant seeks relief under a bill (the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 3575, 108th Cong. (2003)) introduced in
Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 3624. That bill was never enacted. Accordingly,
Movant’s Motion has no arguable basis in fact or in law.
IT IS ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal
Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 (Doc. 39 in CR 08-1320-PHX-
DGC) is denied and that the civil action opened in connection with this Motion (CV 14-
1911-PHX-DGC (DKD)) is dismissed.
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment