Nunez v. United States of America
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09755
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Nunez v. United States: Judge Caproni dismissed Nunez’s post-conviction petition as too late and denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
Starlin Nunez’s § 2255 petition was dismissed as time-barred. He was also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees; the related civil case was terminated.
What happened
In Starlin Nunez v. United States of America, Starlin Nunez asked the court to overturn or otherwise challenge his criminal conviction through a post-conviction petition. He had pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and received a 108-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.
Nunez filed his petition without a lawyer more than two years after his conviction became final. He argued that he had relied on his lawyer’s advice, later concluded that his lawyer had been ineffective, and faced detention-facility restrictions and pandemic lockdowns that limited access to legal resources.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed Nunez’s petition as time-barred because he did not show extraordinary circumstances or a sufficient basis to extend the filing deadline. She also denied a certificate of appealability, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the clerk to terminate the civil case.
The detailed version
- Nunez v. United States of America · No. 1:21-cv-09755
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 4, 2022
Background
Starlin Nunez pleaded guilty on March 22, 2019, to one count of racketeering conspiracy. The court entered a judgment of conviction on March 25, 2019, sentencing him to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Nunez did not appeal.
Nunez later submitted an application using the court’s form for a habeas petition. The court construed the application as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a federal conviction or sentence after direct review. The court warned that the motion might be untimely and gave Nunez an opportunity either to withdraw it or to explain why it should not be dismissed as late.
Arguments about timeliness
The court stated that a § 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year of the latest of several specified dates. Because Nunez did not appeal, the court determined that his conviction became final on April 8, 2019. Nunez placed his motion in the prison mail system on October 29, 2021.
Nunez argued that he relied on his lawyer’s post-sentencing advice that he had no grounds for an appeal and only later concluded, after conducting research, that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. He also argued that restrictions and COVID-19 lockdowns at the facilities where he was detained limited his access to legal resources and delayed preparation of his petition.
Ruling
The court dismissed Nunez’s § 2255 petition as time-barred. It held that Nunez had not shown extraordinary circumstances sufficient to explain a delay of more than two and a half years and had not established a plausible basis for equitable tolling, meaning an extension of the deadline in unusual circumstances. The court reasoned that the COVID-19 lockdowns began approximately one month before the date it identified as the filing deadline and could not justify the lengthy delay in this case.
The court further ordered that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Nunez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate civil case No. 21-CV-9755 and mail Nunez a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.