Trujillo-Matus v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER that Movant's 1 Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 (Doc. 32 in CR 12-923-PHX-DGC) is denied and that this civil action opened in connection is dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/6/2012. (LFIG)

1
2

MDR

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Loreto Trujillo-Matus,

13

Defendant/Movant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-2238-PHX-DGC (JFM)
No. CR 12-923-PHX-DGC
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Movant Loreto Trujillo-Matus’s pro se Motion for Sentence Relief

16

Under the Federal Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003. The Court will

17

deny the motion.

18

This matter has been opened as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

19

However, Movant’s motion does not refer to § 2255. Nor does he refer to any other

20

jurisdictional basis for his motion. Although the Court may construe a pro se motion as a

21

§ 2255 motion, it may not do so without first giving certain warnings to the movant. In

22

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), the Supreme Court held a district court

23

may not recharacterize a motion as a defendant’s first § 2255 motion without first warning

24

him that the recharacterization will subject subsequent § 2255 motions to the law’s “second

25

or successive” restrictions and allowing him an opportunity to withdraw or to amend the

26

motion. But even if the Court had provided Movant with the requisite Castro warning, it

27

would not recharacterize this matter as a motion brought under § 2255 because his claim for

28

relief is unfounded.

1

In his motion, Movant seeks relief under a bill (the Federal Bureau of Prisons

2

Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 3575, 108th Cong. (2003)) introduced in

3

Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 3624. That bill was never enacted into law. Accordingly,

4

Movant’s motion has no arguable basis in fact or in law.

5

IT IS ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Sentence Relief Under the Federal

6

Prison Bureau Non-Violent Offender Relief Act of 2003 (Doc. 32 in CR 12-923-PHX-DGC)

7

is denied and that the civil action opened in connection with this Motion (12-2238-PHX-

8

DGC (JFM)) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

9

DATED this 6th day of November, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-