Fernandez-Rosa v. United States
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:23-cv-01973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Fernandez-Rosa v. United States, Judge Sullivan ordered mailing evidence before deciding whether the prisoner’s motions challenging his conviction were timely.
Hector Emilio Fernandez-Rosa and the United States. The order requires Fernandez-Rosa to provide evidence about mailing his motions and requires the government to respond.
What happened
In Fernandez-Rosa v. United States, Hector Emilio Fernandez-Rosa asked to cancel or change his 2019 conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He submitted two motions under a law allowing federal prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences, but the court received them after the filing deadline appeared to have passed.
Fernandez-Rosa said he placed the first motion in the prison mail system on August 29, 2022, but prison staff rejected it. He said he mailed another motion on October 30, 2022. The court explained that, if those dates were accurate, the motions would be timely under the rule generally treating a prisoner’s filing date as the date it is given to prison officials.
Judge Sullivan did not decide whether the motions were timely or whether a hearing was needed. Instead, he ordered Fernandez-Rosa to file documents and witness affidavits about when and how he mailed the motions by July 17, 2023, and ordered the government to respond within ten days after those materials were filed.
The detailed version
- Fernandez-Rosa v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01973
- Richard Sullivan
- May 16, 2023
Background
Hector Emilio Fernandez-Rosa, who was incarcerated and representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal law that allows a prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He sought to vacate or set aside his 2019 conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
The court had previously ordered Fernandez-Rosa to explain why his motion should not be denied as filed too late. The motion was purportedly dated October 30, 2022, but the court received it on January 19, 2023. On March 6, 2023, the court received a duplicative § 2255 motion that was purportedly dated August 29, 2022. Fernandez-Rosa later submitted a declaration stating that he had placed the first motion in the prison mail system on August 29, 2022, but that facility staff rejected the mail. He said he then placed another motion in the prison mail system on October 30, 2022.
Timeliness issue
The court stated that the actual deadline for Fernandez-Rosa’s § 2255 motion was November 1, 2022. It explained that, under the prison-mail rule, a document submitted by an incarcerated person is generally treated as filed when delivered to prison officials for mailing. Thus, the motions would be timely if Fernandez-Rosa’s claimed mailing dates were accurate.
The court remained concerned because of what it called the self-serving nature of Fernandez-Rosa’s statements and the substantial delays between his claimed mailing dates and the dates the Clerk’s Office received the motions. The court requested additional information to determine whether a hearing would be necessary to decide timeliness.
Order
The court ordered Fernandez-Rosa to file, by July 17, 2023, documents and witness affidavits concerning when and how he mailed the motions. It ordered the government to respond within ten days after Fernandez-Rosa filed those materials. The court also directed that future papers include the criminal docket number and be docketed in the criminal case.
The order did not decide whether Fernandez-Rosa’s § 2255 motions were timely, whether they would be denied, or whether a hearing would occur. Judge Richard J. Sullivan signed the order as a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.