Mendez-Rojas v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-08742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendez-Rojas v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied and dismissed Luciano Mendez-Rojas’s third federal sentence-challenge petition as untimely.
Luciano Mendez-Rojas’s third post-conviction petition was denied and dismissed; the United States prevailed, and appeal-related certificate and fee-free-status requests were denied.
What happened
Mendez-Rojas v. United States involved Luciano Mendez-Rojas’s self-represented petition under a federal law allowing people convicted in federal court to seek post-conviction relief. The United States opposed the petition.
The court relied on the government’s legal memorandum and said the petition was filed too late and did not present facts supporting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court also discussed its earlier denials of Mendez-Rojas’s petitions and its view that his prosecution, guilty plea, representation, and sentence were not legally erroneous.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied and dismissed the petition. He declined to issue a certificate of appealability, determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Mendez-Rojas v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-08742
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 17, 2020
Background
Luciano Mendez-Rojas filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence after judgment. This was his third such petition. The United States filed a memorandum opposing it.
Court’s reasoning
The court incorporated the government’s analysis by reference. It stated that the petition was untimely and failed to set out facts that would warrant relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances.
The court also stated that it had previously denied Mendez-Rojas’s first and second § 2255 petitions. It said he had no basis to claim legal error concerning his prosecution, representation, guilty plea, or sentencing, and that he could not credibly claim a miscarriage of justice. The court further described the evidence supporting his guilty pleas and said the 252-month sentence was justified by the sentencing factors.
Disposition
The court denied Mendez-Rojas’s § 2255 petition and dismissed it. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions identified in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.