Rivera v. United States

Background

On April 27, 2021, the court denied Jesus Rivera’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is the court’s certification that a prisoner has made a substantial showing that a constitutional right may have been denied and may therefore seek appellate review.

Rivera filed a notice of appeal on May 13, 2021. On May 19, 2021, he filed a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asking the court to alter or amend the earlier decision. The opinion states that Rivera was represented by counsel but filed this motion on his own.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that the motion was procedurally improper. Because Rivera was represented by counsel, he could not simultaneously represent himself and make motions directly to the court. The court stated that, while represented, Rivera was not to communicate with the court except through counsel, unless he wished to seek the lawyer’s removal. If he wanted to represent himself, he would have to tell his lawyer and have counsel ask for permission to withdraw.

The court alternatively addressed the motion’s substance. It determined that the motion was timely under Rule 59(e). Although the motion was entered on the electronic docket on May 27, 2021, it was dated May 19, 2021, which was within 28 days of the earlier decision. The court also concluded that it had authority to decide the motion even though Rivera had filed a notice of appeal first, because a timely Rule 59(e) motion remains for the district court to resolve before the appeal becomes effective as to the affected judgment or order.

A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted only when the moving party presents newly discovered evidence that was unavailable earlier or shows a clear legal or factual error. Rivera argued that the court had not adequately explained why it denied a certificate of appealability. The court rejected that argument, stating that it had denied the certificate after determining that Rivera’s claims lacked merit and that he had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation. The court found that Rivera had offered neither new evidence nor a clear legal or factual error in the earlier decision.

Disposition

The court denied Rivera’s Rule 59(e) motion. It also denied a certificate of appealability and declined to authorize Rivera to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees, finding that the appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions identified by the court at the criminal and civil docket numbers.