Minaya v. United States

Background

Oscar Minaya filed a motion challenging the legality of his federal sentence. The opinion states that a jury had convicted him of numerous felonies, including Hobbs Act robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy, and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He was initially sentenced to 92 years’ imprisonment and was later resentenced to 47 years. An amended judgment was entered on June 29, 2021. Because Minaya did not file a direct appeal, the amended judgment became final 14 days later, on July 13, 2021.

Minaya first asked for 90 more days to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court denied that request without prejudice because it could not consider the timeliness of a Section 2255 motion before one had been filed. The court told him that a later motion filed after July 13, 2022, should include facts supporting a request for equitable tolling, meaning an explanation for why the filing deadline should be extended because he had pursued his rights diligently and extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing.

The motion at issue listed five grounds for relief but generally did not explain them or provide supporting facts. It also suggested that Minaya planned to submit a later, more complete Section 2255 motion.

Court’s analysis

The court construed the filing as a motion under Section 2255 because Minaya sought to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Under the rules governing Section 2255 proceedings, a motion must identify all available grounds for relief, state the facts supporting each ground, and identify the relief requested. The court held that Minaya’s filing did not satisfy those requirements.

The court also explained that Minaya has one opportunity within the applicable limitations period to present all grounds for relief in a Section 2255 motion. It therefore gave him an opportunity to amend rather than immediately ending the matter. If Minaya did not want to proceed under Section 2255, he could notify the court in writing within 60 days that he wished to withdraw the application. Otherwise, he had to file an amended motion containing the required information.

The court concluded that the filing appeared untimely. The applicable deadline was generally one year after the conviction became final, making July 13, 2022, the relevant date here. The court stated that the motion appeared to have been placed in the prison mail system on July 21, 2022, and was received on July 25, 2022. Because the handwriting made the mailing date difficult to read, the court instructed Minaya to provide the correct mailing date if it was not July 21. The court also instructed him to allege facts showing diligence and extraordinary circumstances that could support equitable tolling.

Disposition

The court construed Minaya’s filing as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and directed him, within 60 days of the order, either to withdraw it or file an amended Section 2255 motion. The court did not reach the merits of his sentence-related claims. It stated that failure to comply would result in denial of the motion unless Minaya showed good cause. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Effect

The order required Minaya to submit a complete amended motion and explain the apparent lateness of his filing. It did not grant or deny substantive relief from his sentence at this stage.