govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-9_12-cr-80118-0

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.  16- 80769-CIV- HURLEY
( CASE NO.  12- 80118- CR- HURLEY)
TIMOTHY DAVIS,
Movant ,
V.
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,
Respondent.
/
ORDER ADOPTING I N PART & AND REJECTI NG IN PART
MAGISTRATE JUDGE' S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THI S CAUSE i s  bef or e t he court  upon t he  Movant ' s  ç smot i on f or  r el i ef'  whi ch ci t ed t he
Supx eme  Court ' s  deci s i on i nlohnson v.  Uni t edst at es, 135  S. Ct .  2551  ( 2015)  E DE #11 .  Upon r ecei pt
and anal ys i s  of t he  mot i on,  t he  Court  announced i t s i nt ent i on t o recharact er i ze t he mot i on as  one t o
vacat e,  se t  as i de  and cor r ect  sent ence purs uant  t o 28 U. S. C.  j2255,  and gave t he r equi red Cast ro
war ni ngs.  Cast ro v.  Uni t edst at es,  540 U. S.  375  ( 2003).  Ther eaf t er,  purs uant  t o nor mal  pr ocedures,
t he  Cl er k of Cour t  opened t hi s  ci vi l  cas e and t he mat t er  was r efer r ed t o t he Honor abl e Pat ri ck A.
Whi t e,  Uni t ed St at es  Magi s t rat e J udge f or  a r eport  and r ecommendat i on.
Whi l e  t he  mat t er  was  pendi ng bef or e Judge Whi t e,  t he Movant,  respondi ng to one of t he
opt i ons  s et  f or t h i n t he Cast r o war ni ng,  f i l ed a pleadi ng l odgi ng hi s  obj edi on t o t he
recharacterizati on of his moti on as a moti on t o vacat e or corred sent ence under Sedi on 2255.  This
i n turn prompted a report  and recommendat ion,  g DE #92,  r ecommendi ng t hat  t he  mot i on be
di s mi ss ed wi t houtpre judi ce.  The  magi s t r at ejudge opined t hat  k ç g bl ecause t he Movant  has  object ed
to his l et ter' s recharact erizati on as  a Secti on 2255 moti on t o vacate,  i t  s houl d be di s mi ss ed wi t hout
Case 9:12-cr-80118-BB   Document 356   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2016   Page 1 of 4
-
udi ce ' 'Pr e l  .
The t i me f or  f i l i ng obj ect i ons  has  expi r ed and no objedi ons  have been t s l ed.  Ther ef or e,  t he
eourt  ' ' need onl y sat i sf y i t sel f t hat  t here i s no cl ear  er r or  on t he  f ace of  t he r ecor d. ' '  Fed. R.  Ci v.  P.
72( b)  Advi s ory Commi t t ee Not es.See  Macort  v.  Prem,  I nc. ,  208 Fed.  App' x 781,  784 (1  1t h Ci r.
2006) ,  cases  ci t ed i n jba.  Havi ng under t aken t hi s  r evi ew,  t he Court  t i nds  t hat  t he Magi st ra t e J udge' s
t indi ngs  and r ecommendat i on of di smi ss al  t o be sound and wel l  r eas oned. However,  the Court
concl udes  t hat  t he reeommenda t i on of di s mi ss al  wi t hout  pre judi ce i s  er r oneous;  t he mot i on mus t  be
di s mi ssed/br  l ack o fjuri sdi ct i on.
Today,  t he nor mal  met hod f or  i ni t i at i ng a col l at eral  chal l enge t o a f ederal  convi di on i s  a
mot i on t o vacat e,  cor r ect  or  set  as i de  a s ent ence  pur s uant  t o 28  U.S. C.  s ect i on 2255.  See Zel aya v.
Sec  #,  Fl a.  De p ' t  o fcorn,  798 F. 3d 1360 (  1  1 t h  Cir .  20 1  5) .I n r are  ci r cums t ances,  not  appl i cabl e
her e,  a pet i t i oner  may i nvoke 28  U. S. C.  s ect i on 2241  .  When a pro se  l i t i gant  f i l es  a pl eadi ng t hat
% û s ounds  l i ke' '  a 2255 mot i on,  but  f ai l s  t o des i gnat e i t  as  s uch,  a court  i s  aut hor i zed,  i n t he exer ci s e
of i t s  di scr et i on,  t o r echar ader i ze t he mot i on as  a 2255  mot i on t o vaca t e.  Bef or e doi ng s o,  however,
t he cour t  must  pr ovi de t he movant  wi t h wami ngs  s peci f i ed i n t he Supr eme Court ' s  deci si on i n
Cast ro v.  Uni t ed St at es,  540 U. S.  375  ( 2003) .  Among ot her  t hi ngs ,  t he  movant  mus t  be i nf or med
t hat  he has t he r i ght  t o object  t o t he  cour t ' s  announced i nt ent i on t o r echar act er i ze  t he mot i on.  Thi s
i s  f l ows f rom t he pr i nci pl e  t hat  a pl eader  i s  t he mast er  of hi s  compl ai nt. Thus,  when a movant
objeds  t o r echar act er i zat i on,  a cour t  mus t  eval uat e t he  mot i on as  i ni t i al l y desi gna t ed by t he pl eader .
See Zelaya,  supra.
Tur ni ng agai n t o t he  pr ocedural  f ads  of t hi s  cas e,  Mr.  Davi s,  f i l ed a l et t er/ pl eadi ng seeki ng
r el i ef under  t he Supr eme Court ' s  deci si on i n Johns on.Thi s  l s sounded l i ke' '  a 2255  mot i on t o vaca t e
because,  if successful  i t  woul d resul t  in the reduct ion of hi s sent ence. Theref ore,  t he Court  issued
Case 9:12-cr-80118-BB   Document 356   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2016   Page 2 of 4
a Cast ro war ni ng,  al mounci ng i t s  i nt ent i on t o r echar act er i ze t he mot i on and,  among ot her  t hi ngs ,
i nf or mi ng t he  movant  of  hi s  r i ght  t o object .Mr.  Davi s ,  i n t ur n,  l odged hi s  object i on and,  t hus,  hi s
mot i on mus t  be eval uat ed as  or i gi nal l y f i l ed,  and not  as  a s ect i on 2255 mot i on.
l f Mr.  Davi s'  mot i on i s  not  a s ect i on 2255 mot i on to vacat e,  t hen what  i s  i t ?  Mor e t o t he
poi nt ,  what  st at ut e,  court  rul e,  orr et roact i vel y- appl i cabl e gui del i nes  amendment  conf er sjur i sdi ct i on
on t he cour t  t o ent ert ai n t he mot i on and gr ant  t he r el i ef r eques t ed? The Movant  i s  s i l ent  on t hi s  poi nt
and t he  Cour t  has  been unabl e  t o di s cern any bas i s  f orj ur i s di ct i on.  l t  i s,  of cour s e,  axi omat i c t hat
l ' g cj oul ' t s  have an i ndependent  obl i gat i on t o det ermi ne whet her  subj ect -  mat t erj uri sdi ct i on exi s t s,
even when no part y chal lenges i t. ' '  Serf z Cor p.  v.  Fri end,  559 U. S.  77,  94,130 S. Ct.  1  18 1,  1  193
( 2010) .  Mor eover ,  ' l once  a cour t  det er mi nes  t hat  t her e has  been no gr ant  ( ofjur i s di ct i onl  t hat  cover s
a part i cul ar  cas e,  t he court ' s  sol e r emai ni ng act  is  t o di smi s s  t he  case  for l ack o fjuri sdi ct i on. ' '
Morri son v.  Al l st at e Indem.  Co. ,  228 F. 3d 1255,  1261  (1  1t h  Ci r.  2000)  ( Emphasi s  s uppl i ed) .  Wi t h
t hes e pr i nci pl es  i n mi nd,  t he Court  concl udes  i t  l acks  s ubject - mat t er jur i s di ct i on and accor di ngl y t he
mot i on mus t  be di s mi ss ed f or  l ack of  j ur i s di ct i on.
The magi s t r at e j udge and hi s  abl e st af f have done an ext r aor di nar y job i n especi al l y
di f f i cul t  ci rcums t anees  t o ensur e t hat rro se  l i t i gant s  r ecei ve  t hor ough and car ef ul  cons i de rat i on.  No
cr i t i ci sm what soever  i s i nt ended by t hi s  Court ' s  order  of part i aladopt i on of  t he  r eport  and
recommendati on.
Accor di ngl y,  i t  i s  ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
The  magi st r at ej udge' s  Report  and Recommendat i on,  DE #9,  i s  her eby ADOPTED
IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART.
Pur s uant  t o Rul e 58,  Fed. R. Ci v. P. ,  t he he  Cour t  wi ll  ent er  a f i nalj udgment .
The Cl erk of Court  is  di rected to CLOSE t hi s case and a1 1  pendi ng mot i ons  are
DENIED AS M OOT.
Case 9:12-cr-80118-BB   Document 356   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2016   Page 3 of 4
DONE and SIGNED i n Chambers  at  West  Pal m Beach,  Fl or i da,  t hi s  8t h  day of  Augus t ,
2016.
*  (.*
Dani el  T.  K.  Hurl ey
Uni t ed St at es  Di s t r i ct  Judge
Copi es  f ur ni s hed t o:
Uni t ed St at es  Magi s t r at e Judge
Counsel  for the part i es
Mr.  Timot hy Davi s
Case 9:12-cr-80118-BB   Document 356   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2016   Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight