
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Ponce CASTELLON, a.k.a. Harvey Castellon, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50213
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Francisco Sanchez-Garcia, Pro Se
    Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Ponce Castellón appeals from the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to reopen, which challenged his conviction and sentence for multiple drug trafficking offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Castellón contends that the district court erred by failing to recharacterize his motion to reopen as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and ordering the government to respond. The district court’s order denying Castellon’s motion to reopen does not disclose the basis for its decision. However, the court may have mistakenly believed, based on a docketing error, that in 2005, a section 2255 motion had been filed on Cas-tellon’s behalf and denied on the merits. Because the relief Castellón sought in his motion to reopen is available only through a section 2255 motion and he has not filed a first section 2255 motion, we vacate and remand with instructions that the district court evaluate Castellon’s motion as one arising under section 2255. See United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (9th Cir. 1990). We express no opinion as to the merits of Castellon’s claims.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Recharacterized as a section 2255 habeas, Castellon’s motion appears to be untimely. Any such finding, however, cannot be made until the district court follows the procedures set forth in Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003).
     