Mendoza v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:13-cv-01160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mendoza v. United States, Judge Castel denied Mendoza’s request to add to a closed post-conviction motion and denied appeal-related relief.
Seferino Mendoza’s request to amend or supplement his post-conviction motion and his ability to pursue an appeal without a certificate of appealability or advance payment of filing fees.
What happened
In Mendoza v. United States, Seferino Mendoza asked to amend or supplement his motion challenging his federal conviction and sentence. The order states that no such motion was pending and that the Court of Appeals had denied permission to file another one.
The court denied Mendoza’s request to amend or supplement the motion. It also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Castel entered the order on October 30, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims in Mendoza’s post-conviction challenge.
The detailed version
- Mendoza v. United States · No. 1:13-cv-01160
- P. Castel
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
Seferino Mendoza was the defendant in the criminal case and the petitioner in the related civil case. The order refers to earlier proceedings beginning with his guilty plea and continuing through the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal statute used to challenge a federal conviction or sentence after judgment. The order also states that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had denied Mendoza permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Mendoza’s Request
Mendoza filed a motion to amend or supplement his § 2255 motion. The court denied that request because no § 2255 motion was pending and the Court of Appeals had denied leave to file a second or successive motion.
Other Rulings
The court determined that Mendoza had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue. A certificate of appealability is court authorization needed for an appeal from this type of post-conviction proceeding.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Mendoza permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
Judge Castel denied Mendoza’s motion to amend or supplement his § 2255 motion. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not reach the merits of Mendoza’s underlying post-conviction claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.