Mendez v. United States
- Denny Chin
- 1:16-cv-04400
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mendez v. United States, Judge Chin denied Mendez’s motion seeking relief from an earlier order transferring his challenge to his conviction.
Jesus Mendez, whose Rule 60(b) motion was denied and whose earlier transfer order remained in place.
What happened
In United States v. Jesus Mendez, Mendez asked the court to undo its earlier order treating his challenge to his conviction as a second federal post-conviction motion and sending it to the Second Circuit.
The court assumed that Mendez’s motion was filed on time, but ruled that the earlier transfer order was not a final order that could be reviewed under the rule he invoked. The court also said that, if treated as a request to reconsider the earlier order, the request was untimely, the earlier treatment was correct, and the issue was moot because the Second Circuit had already denied permission to file the second post-conviction motion.
Judge Denny Chin denied Mendez’s motion for relief from the March 31, 2020 order. The clerk was directed to send Mendez a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04400
- Denny Chin
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background
Jesus Mendez filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a party to seek relief from certain final judgments or orders. In an earlier order dated March 31, 2020, the court treated Mendez’s first Rule 60(b) motion as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it challenged his underlying convictions. Section 2255 provides a procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court transferred that matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to decide whether Mendez could file the successive motion.
Mendez later filed the present Rule 60(b) motion, seeking relief from the March 31, 2020 transfer order. While the motion was pending, the Second Circuit denied Mendez permission to file the successive § 2255 motion. The opinion also notes that Mendez had another successive § 2255 matter pending before the Second Circuit.
Arguments and Analysis
Mendez argued that the court erred by treating his earlier Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. The court assumed that the present motion was timely based on Mendez’s declaration that he mailed it within one year of the earlier order.
The court nevertheless held that Rule 60(b) did not provide a basis for relief because the March 31, 2020 transfer order was not a final judgment, order, or proceeding reviewable under that rule. The court cited precedent describing a transfer order as an interlocutory, rather than final, order.
The court further ruled that, to the extent Mendez’s motion was really a request for reconsideration, it was untimely. The court also concluded that it had correctly treated Mendez’s earlier motion as a successive § 2255 motion because that motion attacked his underlying convictions. Finally, the court found the issue moot because the Second Circuit had already considered the matter and denied permission to file the successive motion.
Disposition
Judge Denny Chin denied Mendez’s motion for relief from the March 31, 2020 order. The order does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. The clerk was directed to send Mendez a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.