Opinion
Criminal Action No. 06-cr-00155-DME-1.
February 1, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Stephen Vincent Hunt's letter to the Court, dated January 21, 2010, and received by the Court on January 26, 2010. (Doc. 294.) Liberally construing this pro se letter, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), it appears that Hunt seeks to challenge his convictions, which he can do by motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has cautioned federal courts about construing a pro se inmate's pleadings to be initial § 2255 motions, because doing so "can have serious consequences for the prisoner, for it subjects any subsequent motion under § 2255 to the restrictive conditions that federal law imposes upon a `second or successive' (but not upon a first) federal habeas motion. § 2255, ¶ 8." Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003).
Therefore, the Court will not construe this letter as a motion under § 2255 at this time, but rather will dismiss without prejudice the request of relief in Hunt's letter as improperly raised. This dismissal is without prejudice to his raising this or other claims in a proper motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or under any other authority on which Hunt wishes to rely. If Hunt seeks relief in the future under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he should be mindful of the restrictions § 2255 places on any subsequent or successive § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255(h), as well as the time limits under which he can pursue such relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses any request for relief Hunt has included in his letter to the Court, dated January 21, 2010, as improperly raised, but the Court does so without prejudice to Hunt's filing such a request in a proper motion.