United States v. Watson, 1:19-cr-00212

On January 11, 2022, Perry J. Wells filed a pro se letter challenging his conviction/sentence and asked it not be treated as a motion.
On January 19, 2022, the Court informed Wells that portions of the letter could be construed as a § 2255 habeas petition and explained the Adams/Castro recharacterization rules, offering Wells the chance to withdraw or amend by February 25, 2022.
Wells did not respond to the Court's order.
The Court construed the relevant portions of the January 11 letter as a § 2255 petition; Wells’ alleged ineffective-assistance claims consisted of two short statements: counsel told him what to say, did not explain the plea process, and was “after money.”
Applying Strickland, the Court found the allegations conclusory, not showing deficient performance or prejudice, and therefore denied the § 2255 petition.
The Court denied a certificate of appealability, certified any appeal would not be in good faith, denied in forma pauperis status for appeal, and directed the Clerk to open (and then close) a parallel civil case to docket the habeas filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recharacterization as a § 2255 petition	Wells asked letter not to be treated as a motion	Court: Adams/Castro permit recharacterization with notice and chance to withdraw; Wells got notice and deadline	Court recharacterized pertinent portions as a § 2255 petition (Wells did not withdraw)
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Henry advised what to say, failed to explain plea process, acted for money	Allegations are conclusory; record lacks specifics showing deficient performance or prejudice	Denied — Wells failed to show Strickland deficiency or prejudice
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Implicit: entitlement to appellate review	Record does not show a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right	COA denied
In forma pauperis status for appeal / good-faith certification	Implicit: request to proceed if appealing	Court: appeal would not be taken in good faith	Court certified appeal not in good faith and denied IFP for appeal

Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 1998) (district courts should not recharacterize pro se pleadings as § 2255 motions without notice or consent in specified circumstances)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (district court must notify pro se litigant when it will recharacterize a pleading as a § 2255 motion and warn about second-or-successive consequences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lynn v. Bliden, 443 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006) (applies Strickland standard in the Second Circuit)
Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2005) (clarifies the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (appeal in forma pauperis may be denied where appeal is not taken in good faith)