Jimenez v. United States

Background

Thomas Jimenez, who was incarcerated and representing himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The motion challenged his 2013 conviction. The opinion notes that his name appeared as Tomas Jimenez in the criminal proceedings.

Jimenez had pleaded guilty to three counts: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics; racketeering conspiracy; and possessing a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking. The court imposed two concurrent 120-month prison terms and a consecutive 60-month term. Judgment was entered on June 19, 2013, and Jimenez did not appeal.

Jimenez previously filed a § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. In that earlier round of the case, the motion was dismissed without prejudice because he did not sign it as ordered; the court also stated that the motion lacked merit because his conviction involved drug trafficking rather than a crime of violence.

Current Motion and Timeliness Issue

Jimenez gave the current motion to prison officials for mailing on July 16, 2020. He claimed that he instructed his lawyer to appeal, but the lawyer failed to do so and told him that he could not appeal. He argued that trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. He sought restoration of his appeal rights and vacatur of his conviction.

The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must file a § 2255 motion within one year of the latest of several specified events, including when the conviction becomes final. The court determined that Jimenez’s conviction became final on or about July 5, 2013, when the 14-day period for filing a timely appeal expired. The court therefore concluded that the motion appeared to have been approximately six years late when Jimenez gave it to prison officials in July 2020.

Order

Judge Cathy Seibel directed Jimenez to file a sworn declaration within 60 days showing why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. The court instructed him to allege facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The order states that if he fails to comply, the motion will be denied as time-barred.

The court did not require an answer from the government at that time. It also found that Jimenez had not then made the required substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation, so a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The opinion is a show-cause order, not a final denial of the § 2255 motion.