Valdez v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:22-cv-07626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Valdez v. United States, Judge Wood ordered Alexis Valdez to explain within 60 days why his late sentence challenge should not be denied.
Alexis Valdez’s federal sentence challenge is subject to a possible one-year filing deadline; the United States must respond only if the court later orders service.
What happened
In Valdez v. United States, Alexis Valdez, who was representing himself, asked the court to set aside his sentence, claiming his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. The court said the request appeared to have been filed too late.
Valdez’s appeal was dismissed on March 20, 2020. The court calculated that his one-year deadline to file the sentence challenge was August 17, 2021, but he delivered his motion to prison officials on August 17, 2022.
Judge Kimba Wood ordered Valdez to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the motion should not be denied as late. The court has not yet denied the motion, but said it will do so if Valdez does not comply. It also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Valdez v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-07626
- Kimba Wood
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
Alexis Valdez, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his sentence. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin and cocaine base, and to unlicensed dealing in firearms. He now raises claims that his lawyer was ineffective.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Valdez’s direct appeal on March 20, 2020. The district court calculated that Valdez’s conviction became final for purposes of the one-year filing period on August 17, 2020, after the applicable period for seeking review by the Supreme Court. The one-year deadline for filing the § 2255 motion was therefore August 17, 2021. Valdez delivered his motion to prison authorities for mailing on August 17, 2022.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal prisoners generally have one year to file a § 2255 motion, measured from one of several events listed in the statute, including when the conviction becomes final. Because Valdez filed one year after the court-calculated deadline, the court said his motion appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations.
The court also recognized that the deadline may be extended in extraordinary circumstances when a person has pursued his rights diligently. It directed Valdez to provide facts addressing both diligence and any extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
Ruling
The court directed Valdez to file a declaration within 60 days showing why his motion should not be denied as time-barred. If he files a timely and adequate declaration, the court will review it and, if appropriate, order the motion served on the United States. If he does not comply, the motion will be denied as time-barred. The court did not decide the ineffective-assistance claims at this stage.
The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Valdez 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.