MEMORANDUM & ORDER

J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

Defendant Keenan J. Farr has filed a motion that attacks his criminal sentence on three grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, a defective indictment. (Doc. 197.) There appears to be some confusion, however, with the procedural aspects of the motion: Farr cites to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 60(b), which deals with victim's rights, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which does not govern criminal cases like this one. The Court believes that Farr intended to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition instead, especially considering his caption includes the titles "petitioner" and "defendant."

The Court, however, is hesitant to construe this motion as a § 2255 petition without a clear indication that Farr intends to invoke that statute. "[T]he court cannot so recharacterize a pro se litigant's motion as the litigant's first § 2255 motion unless the court informs the litigant of its intent to recharacterize, warns the litigant that the recharacterization will subject subsequent § 2255 motions to the law's second or successive restrictions, and provides the litigant with an opportunity to withdraw, or to amend, the filing." Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003).

Accordingly, the Court WARNS Defendant Farr that if he does not file a motion to withdraw his pending motion (Doc. 197) on or before May 21, 2018, the Court will construe it as a § 2255 motion and subject Farr to the law's second or successive filing requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.