Christman v. United States

Background

Silviano Christman, who was incarcerated at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented application labeled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought to modify his federal sentence, alleging that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment by failing to file a notice of appeal after Christman directed the lawyer to do so.

In 2014, Christman pleaded guilty to attempted bank robbery, bank fraud, and attempted bank fraud. The court sentenced him to 40 months in prison and five years of supervised release. He did not appeal. After his release, he violated supervised release by committing a state crime and leaving the district without permission. In March 2018, the court sentenced him to six months in prison for those violations.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the filing had to be treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Christman was challenging his federal conviction and sentence. The court gave him 60 days to notify the court in writing if he wanted to withdraw the application. If he did not withdraw it, the application would remain designated as a § 2255 motion.

The court explained that a § 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year of the latest of specified events, including when the conviction becomes final, when a government-created obstacle is removed, when a newly recognized and retroactive Supreme Court right becomes available, or when the supporting facts could have been discovered through due diligence. Because Christman did not appeal, the court determined that his conviction became final on November 17, 2014. Christman placed the application in the prison mail collection box on September 23, 2020, more than five years and ten months later.

The court therefore stated that the application appeared to be time-barred. It allowed Christman 60 days to show cause—meaning to provide facts explaining why the filing should not be rejected as late—including facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

Order

Judge Cathy Seibel construed Christman’s § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion and ordered Christman, within 60 days of the order, either to withdraw it or file a declaration showing cause why it should not be denied as time-barred. The court stated that, if he filed a proper declaration, it would review it and could order the motion served on the government. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, the motion would be denied as time-barred. The court did not require an answer from the government at that time.

The clerk was directed to substitute the United States of America as respondent in the civil case’s docket and short caption. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Christman had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.