United States v. Caldwell, 1:17-cr-00066

On May 31, 2018, Jacob Lee Caldwell pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and was sentenced to 60 months; he did not appeal.
After the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis (invalidating § 924(c)’s residual clause) Caldwell filed a pro se motion (Sept. 20, 2019) requesting appointment of counsel to pursue Davis-based relief.
Caldwell’s motion did not reference 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the court indicated it would recharacterize the filing as a § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
The court warned that recharacterization invokes the restrictions on second or successive § 2255 petitions and AEDPA’s one-year limitation, and instructed Caldwell to notify the court within 30 days if he contests recharacterization, wishes to withdraw, or wishes to amend the filing.
The court denied appointment of counsel, concluding Caldwell had not shown the “interests of justice” required for counsel in a § 2255 proceeding.
The Clerk was ordered to docket a new civil action as a § 2255 motion (nunc pro tunc Sept. 20, 2019) and to provide Caldwell the standard § 2255 form; any amended § 2255 motion must be complete and will supersede the original filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pro se motion should be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion	Caldwell seeks counsel to pursue relief under Davis (invalidating § 924(c) residual clause)	Motion did not invoke § 2255; Caldwell may contest recharacterization	Court will recharacterize the filing as a § 2255 motion but must notify Caldwell and give 30 days to respond or withdraw
Whether Davis provides cognizable relief from Caldwell's § 924(c) conviction	Davis invalidated the residual clause that could have supported the § 924(c) conviction	Government could assert procedural bars (successive petition rules, AEDPA limitations)	Court noted Davis and warned that § 2255 restrictions (second/successive and statute of limitations) apply
Whether counsel must be appointed for Caldwell's § 2255 proceeding	Caldwell requested appointment to pursue Davis claim	No absolute right to counsel in habeas; appointment requires showing interests of justice	Denied appointment of counsel; Caldwell did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or interests of justice
Administrative requirements and effect of amendment	Caldwell may wish to amend to assert all § 2255 claims	If amended, new motion must include all claims; original will be superseded	Clerk to docket as a § 2255 action (nunc pro tunc Sept. 20, 2019) and attach § 2255 form; amended motion will supersede original; failure to respond triggers recharacterization

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidating § 924(c)’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (district court must notify pro se litigant before recharacterizing a motion as a § 2255 petition)
Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880 (11th Cir. 2003) (no absolute constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings; appointment governed by interests-of-justice standard)
Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2007) (amended pleading supersedes original)
Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) (same rule on amendment/superseding pleadings)
McCall v. Cook, [citation="495 F. App'x 29"] (11th Cir. 2012) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is a privilege, not a constitutional right)