Begay v. United States of America

Filing 41

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that defendant Begay's Motion to Reinstate Habeas Corpus Proceedings (Doc. 39 ), filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue and that defend ant Begay shall not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Court abused its discretion in denying Begay's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, and jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether Begays underlying § 2255 motion stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See document for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/04/2015.(REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
10

Plaintiff,
11

vs.
12

Ivan Ray Begay,
13

Defendant/Movant.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-08221-PCT-PGR
No. CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR

ORDER

16

Pending before the Court’s is defendant Begay’s Motion to Reinstate Habeas

17

Corpus Proceedings (Doc. 39), filed on July 23, 2015. The Court’s Judgment and

18

Commitment order in Begay’s underlying criminal action, which stemmed from

19

Begay’s plea of guilty to eight counts of aggravated sexual abuse, was entered on

20

September 17, 2001 and Begay, through counsel, appealed his 302 month sentence

21

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 18, 2001. The Ninth Circuit’s

22

mandate affirming Begay’s sentence was entered on this Court’s docket on

23

September 20, 2002. Begay’s copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which was

24

apparently mailed to him by the Clerk of this Court, was returned as undeliverable

25

on October 7, 2002. Begay’s § 2255 action, which was not filed until November 15,

26

2010, was dismissed by this Court as time-barred on March 7, 2011, and the Ninth

1

Circuit dismissed his appeal of the judgment of dismissal on August 27, 2012 when

2

it denied the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Having reviewed Begay’s

3

latest post-judgment motion in light of the relevant record, the Court finds that it

4

should be denied.

5

Begay states that his motion is filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 6)(b)(6),

6

which permits relief from a final judgment for “any ... reason that justifies relief” other

7

than the more specific reasons set out in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5). Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d

8

1117, 1119-20 (9th Cir.2014). In order to be entitled to relief under this rule, Begay

9

must show the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” justifying the reopening

10

of the final judgment in his § 2255 action, and the Supreme Court has made it clear

11

that such circumstances “rarely occur in the habeas context.” Gonzalez v. Crosby,

12

545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Even assuming that Begay’s motion is a legitimate Rule

13

60(b)(6) motion and is sufficient to meet the rule’s extraordinary circumstances

14

requirement, Begay is not entitled to equitable tolling unless he also meets his heavy

15

burden of establishing (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that

16

some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.

17

408, 418 (2005). He has also show a causal link between the extraordinary

18

circumstance and the untimeliness of his § 2255 action.

19

Begay, who has previously argued to the Court that he neither knew that the

20

direct appeal had been filed on his behalf nor that the Ninth Circuit had denied it,

21

argues that the required extraordinary circumstance in this case is the failure of the

22

Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to comply with the Ninth Circuit’s general

23

order requiring that the Clerk forward all returned mail sent to a prisoner in a federal

24

institution to the appropriate United States Attorney with an instructional letter

25

requiring that office to use all reasonable means to effect delivery to the prisoner and

26

-2-

1

to submit proof of such efforts and the results of that effort to the Clerk within

2

fourteen days. Begay asserts that the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with

3

this requirement, and that as a result he was deprived of vital information of when

4

his judgment of conviction became final.

5

understands it, is that had he timely received a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision

6

denying his direct appeal, he “would have known the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 time limit

7

began Oct. 21, 2002, and expired on Oct. 23, 2003.” Apparently Begay would have

8

the Court reopen his § 2255 action so that he can argue that the statute of limitations

9

should be equitably tolled due to his failure to receive notice of the denial of his

10

appeal. The Court concludes that Begay has not established his right to equitable

11

tolling as to this new ground.

Begay’s contention, as the Court

12

First, Begay has not been reasonably diligent about raising this ground.

13

Begay never states when he first learned that his direct appeal had been denied. But

14

even assuming that he did not in fact contemporaneously know about the existence

15

of the appeal or its denial, Begay clearly learned about them from the Government’s

16

response (Doc. 4) to his § 2255 motion, which the Government filed on January 28,

17

2011.1 Begay did not thereafter raise an equitable tolling issue based on his lack of

18

knowledge of the denial of the appeal in his reply (Doc. 5) in support of his § 2255

19

motion or in his objections (Doc. 7) to the Report and Recommendation. Nor did he

20

raise the issue in any of his subsequent post-judgment motions, i.e., Docs. 13, 14,

21

15, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 36. Begay first raised this issue in the

22
23
24
25
26

1

The Government’s response stated in part: “Defendant’s counsel filed
a notice of appeal on September 18, 2001. ... Defendant argued on appeal that the
sentencing court erred by imposing a 2-level enhancement for restraining the
victims. The enhancement was upheld by the Ninth Circuit on July 22, 2002. The
Mandate issued September 20, 2002.”
-3-

1

pending motion, which he filed some 4½ years after he clearly knew about the denial

2

of his direct appeal.

3

Second, Begay has not shown that his lack of knowledge of the denial of his

4

direct appeal constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from

5

timely filing a § 2255 action. If Begay in fact did not know of the existence of his

6

direct appeal until years after it was filed, as he has repeatedly stated, then his delay

7

in filing had nothing to do with him waiting until this appeal was resolved. Rather,

8

as Begay has made clear in his § 2255 motion and in various of his subsequent

9

motions prior to the pending motion, the actual cause of his failure to timely file his

10

§ 2255 action was his belief that his federal public defender told him not to appeal

11

until eight years after his sentencing, which is a contention that the Court has

12

already rejected as not credible, and his claimed lack of any knowledge of the

13

existence of § 2255 and its time limits. Therefore,

14
15

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Begay’s Motion to Reinstate Habeas Corpus
Proceedings (Doc. 39), filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), is denied.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue

17

and that defendant Begay shall not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis because

18

jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Court abused its discretion

19

in denying Begay’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, and jurists of reason would not find

20

it debatable whether Begay’s underlying § 2255 motion stated a valid claim of the

21

denial of a constitutional right.

22

DATED this 4th day of August, 2015.

23
24
25
26

-4-