01-2989 Henderson v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Henderson’s first motion was not a section 2255 motion as such; it is deemed a section 2255 motion as a result of the rule adopted in Evans and other cases… Nothing in AEDPA says that a motion not labeled as a section 2255 motion shall nevertheless be deemed one if it could have been so labeled accurately. This is a purely judge-made rule, and so its contours are up to the judges to draw. All we hold today, and all the cases that we have cited hold, is that we won’t deem a Rule 33 (or other mislabeled motion) a section 2255 motion unless the movant has been warned about the consequences of his mistake… No warning was given to Henderson that his Rule 33 motion might be deemed a section 2255 motion. So he is not required to obtain our permission to file such a motion, and his motion for leave to file a second section 2255 motion is therefore dismissed as moot.”

Dismissed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Posner, J.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event