[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 29, 2004
No. 01-12181 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 97-00097-CV-4
HERNAN O’RYAN CASTRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 29, 2004)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before WILSON, RONEY and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court reversed our
decision in this matter,1 holding that when a district court treats as a request for
habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a motion that a pro se federal prisoner has
labeled differently, “the district court must notify the pro se litigant that it intends
to recharacterize the pleading, warn the litigant that this recharacterization means
that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on ‘second or
successive’ motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the
motion or to amend it so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he believes he has.”
Castro v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 786, 792 (2003). In light of the
Supreme Court’s holding, we REVERSE and REMAND this case to the district
court to consider the merits of Castro’s petition.
1
See O’Ryan Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2002).
2