Flores-Mendez v. United States

Background

Isaias Flores-Mendez was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 14, 2014. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for asking a court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Judge Katherine B. Forrest denied that earlier motion on January 10, 2018.

Flores-Mendez then filed another sentence challenge on October 22, 2019. The Government argued that it was a second or successive § 2255 motion and that the district court could not consider its merits without authorization from the Court of Appeals. The district court transferred that motion, and on April 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied permission to file a second or successive petition.

Before and after that filing, Flores-Mendez submitted additional motions, including motions to correct his sentence, to be heard on newly discovered evidence, for relief from judgment, and to file another successive petition with a co-defendant. The opinion states that he filed these motions without a lawyer. The Government argued that some of the motions were also procedurally improper second or successive § 2255 motions.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a later petition is second or successive when it raises a claim that was, or could have been, raised in an earlier petition. Before such a motion may be filed in the district court, the appropriate Court of Appeals must authorize it.

The court found that the motions addressed the same subjects: alleged ineffective assistance by counsel concerning whether to accept a plea agreement; an alleged abuse of discretion in sentencing; and alleged constitutional violations by the prosecution. The court stated that Flores-Mendez could have raised these claims in an earlier petition and that an earlier petition reviewed by the Court of Appeals had raised a similar sentencing claim.

Ruling

The court construed the motion at 13 Crim. 31, ECF No. 440, as a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The court stated that, if the Court of Appeals authorized Flores-Mendez to proceed, he could move to reopen the matter under the civil docket number.

The court construed Flores-Mendez’s other submissions as second or successive § 2255 petitions and denied all of them as procedurally improper and redundant of the transferred motion. The court did not reach the merits of his sentencing, counsel, or prosecution-related claims.

The court also determined that none of the motions made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to pursue an appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was directed to close the specified criminal and civil docket entries and to close civil case number 19 Civ. 9889.