Pedro v. United States

Background

Martin Selwyn Pedro, who was incarcerated, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his federal conviction and sentence. The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must use 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge a conviction or sentence. Pedro invoked § 2241’s exception for situations in which § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.

Why the Court Reclassified the Filing

The court construed Pedro’s filing as a motion under § 2255 because he sought to vacate his conviction and sentence. Pedro argued that § 2255 was unavailable because any § 2255 motion would be a second or successive motion requiring permission from the Court of Appeals, and because it was filed more than one year after his amended judgment became final.

The court rejected the first argument. It held that the motion was not second or successive because it challenged an amended judgment rather than the same judgment challenged in Pedro’s prior § 2255 motions.

The court agreed that the motion was filed more than one year after the amended judgment became final, but it explained that § 2255’s one-year period may run from the date on which the Supreme Court first recognizes a new right and makes it retroactively applicable to collateral review. Pedro relied on United States v. Taylor, decided on June 21, 2022. The court stated that neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit had yet decided whether Taylor applies retroactively, although some district courts had suggested that it does. The court did not resolve that retroactivity question.

Order and Effect

The court found that § 2255 was adequate and available for Pedro’s challenge and designated the submission as a § 2255 motion. Pedro was given 60 days to notify the court in writing if he wished to withdraw it. If he did not do so, the court would construe the filing as a § 2255 motion, giving him one opportunity within the applicable limitations period for a full adjudication of his claims. The court stated that no answer was required at that time.

The Clerk was directed to substitute the United States of America as the respondent in the civil case. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Pedro had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Classification

This was a procedural order. The court decided how Pedro’s filing should be treated and addressed its availability and timing, but it did not decide the underlying challenge to his conviction or sentence.