Gooden: District Court Failed to give recharacterization notice

In Gooden v. U.S., No. 09-10499 (Dec. 8, 2009), the Court held that the district court improperly dismissed Gooden’s motion to compel a reduction of sentence for substantial assistance. The district court had dismissed the motion on the ground that it was an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and was an unauthorized “second and successive” motion. Prior to this motion, the inmate had filed a “motion to modify” his sentence, which the district court had recharacterized as a § 2255 motion. However, in so recharacterizing the inmate’s motion, the district court failed to give the inmate notice of the recharacterization and its adverse consequences on future § 2255 motions, as required by Castro v. U.S., 540 U.S. 375 (2003). Because of the district court’s initial failure to give notice of recharacterization, it could not now dismiss Gooden’s latest motion for being second or successive. The Court rejected the government’s argument that notice of recharacterization need not be given when a motion is untimely. The Court explained that future events can render a § 2255 motion timely, and that the notice is therefore necessary to alert a defendant to his options.