GONZALEZ v. WARDEN FCI MCKEAN

Background

William Gonzalez, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging both his federal conviction and sentence. He had pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics. The court sentenced him to 17 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Gonzalez appealed, but the appeal was later withdrawn under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.

Gonzalez had previously asked the court to appoint counsel to help him file a custody challenge. The court denied that request without prejudice to renewing it with a complete petition. He later filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where he was incarcerated. That court determined that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Southern District of New York.

Recharacterization under Section 2255

The court explained that Section 2255 is generally the proper procedure for a federal prisoner challenging the validity of a federal conviction or sentence. Section 2241 generally applies to a challenge concerning how a sentence is being carried out. Because Gonzalez challenged both his conviction and sentence, the court construed the petition as seeking relief under Section 2255 rather than Section 2241.

Before treating the filing as a Section 2255 motion, the court was required to notify Gonzalez of that intended change and give him an opportunity to withdraw the petition or amend it to include all of his Section 2255 claims. The court also warned that treating the petition as a Section 2255 motion could subject a later motion to restrictions on second or successive motions. Those restrictions generally require appellate-court authorization based on newly discovered evidence or a qualifying new constitutional rule.

Court’s order

The court construed the matter as seeking relief under Section 2255. It granted Gonzalez leave to withdraw the petition by August 15, 2025, if he did not want that treatment. If he chose to proceed, the court granted him leave to file an amended and signed Section 2255 motion by the same date. The amended motion must clearly list each ground for relief and the facts supporting it. The court specifically noted that the petition transferred from Pennsylvania was unsigned and stated that an amended motion must be signed under penalty of perjury.

The court did not decide the merits of Gonzalez’s challenges to his conviction or sentence. It adjourned the Government’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond without setting a new date. It also determined that Gonzalez had not made the required showing for a certificate of appealability, so no certificate would issue. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The Clerk was directed to mail Gonzalez a copy of the order and note the mailing on the docket.