Santillan v. United States

Background

Hector Santillan, who the order states was incarcerated at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, asked for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 provides a procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The clerk docketed Santillan’s submission as a § 2255 motion in his criminal case, 13-CR-0138-1 (MKV), and also opened it as a § 2255 motion in this separate civil action, 20-CV-5999 (MKV).

Reason for the Ruling

The court construed Santillan’s submission as a motion in the criminal case and held that the separate civil action had been opened in error. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that a district court may extend the time to file a § 2255 motion only after an actual § 2255 motion has been filed and when rare and exceptional circumstances support extending the deadline. Santillan had not filed an actual § 2255 motion, and his letter did not contain enough information to be treated as one under Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

The court stated that, if Santillan later files a § 2255 motion, he should identify both the substantive grounds for relief and facts supporting equitable tolling—a possible extension of the filing deadline based on diligent pursuit of rights and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Santillan’s request for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to administratively close civil action 20-CV-5999 (MKV), mail Santillan a copy of the order, and note service on the docket. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the motion made no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not rule on the merits of any § 2255 claim.