Bravo v. United States

Background

Luis Bravo, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that delays in his federal criminal proceedings, including delays associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, violated his rights to a fair and speedy trial. He also alleged that he could not adequately meet with counsel, inspect the government’s evidence, or prepare for trial. Bravo pleaded guilty to wire fraud on June 2, 2021, and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. He asked the court to dismiss his criminal conviction.

Conversion to a Section 2255 motion

The court ruled that the amended complaint had to be treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Bravo was seeking to vacate his federal criminal conviction. Section 2255 provides a procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court gave Bravo 60 days to notify the court if he wanted to withdraw the application. If he did not withdraw it, the filing would remain designated as a Section 2255 motion.

Timeliness issue

The court explained that a Section 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year from the latest of several dates listed in the statute. Bravo’s judgment was entered on June 7, 2021. Because he did not appeal, the court determined that his conviction became final on June 21, 2021. Bravo filed this action on August 28, 2022, which the court found was more than one year after the conviction became final.

The court therefore ordered Bravo to show cause—meaning to provide reasons—why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. The court directed him to identify facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing. The opinion did not make a final merits ruling on Bravo’s fair-trial or speedy-trial allegations.

Disposition

The court construed Bravo’s amended complaint as a Section 2255 motion and ordered him either to withdraw it or file a declaration within 60 days explaining why it should not be dismissed as time-barred. The court stated that, if he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the motion would be denied as time-barred. No response from the United States was required at that stage.

The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Bravo had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.