Salinas-Garcia v. United States

Background

Jose Fernando Salinas-Garcia, who was incarcerated in Big Spring Correctional Institution, filed a pro se submission titled “Demand to Abate or Vacate Void Judgment.” He challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence and sought release from custody. The opinion states that he had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and had received a 235-month prison sentence. He did not appeal his conviction.

How the court treated the filing

Because Salinas-Garcia sought to vacate his federal conviction and sentence, the court construed the submission as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 generally provides the procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court explained that he could withdraw the application within 60 days if he did not want to proceed under that statute. If he did not withdraw it, the application would remain designated as a § 2255 motion.

Possible filing deadline problem

The court explained that a § 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year of the latest of four specified events, including when the conviction becomes final or when the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The judgment was entered on May 24, 2006. Because Salinas-Garcia did not appeal, the court determined that the conviction became final on June 7, 2006. The court stated that he placed the present application in the prison mail collection box on January 9, 2020—more than 13 years and seven months after finality and after the applicable one-year period had expired.

The court noted that the filing deadline can sometimes be extended when a person has pursued his rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. It directed Salinas-Garcia to identify facts supporting those circumstances if he chose to continue.

Disposition

The court construed the application as a motion under § 2255 and gave Salinas-Garcia 60 days from the order’s date to either notify the court that he wished to withdraw it or file a declaration showing why it should not be denied as time-barred. The court said it would review any timely declaration and, if appropriate, order that the motion be served on the United States. If Salinas-Garcia failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, the motion would be denied as time-barred.

This order did not decide whether his jurisdiction and due-process arguments were legally correct. No response from the United States was required at that stage. The court also determined that no certificate of appealability would issue because Salinas-Garcia had not then made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.