Navarrete-Sanchez v. USA

Filing 10

ORDER Denying relief From Judgment of Dismissal denying 6 Motion for Relief. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JORGE NAVARRETE-SANCHEZ,

Case No. 1:10-CV-609-BLW
1:07-CR-172-BLW
ORDER DENYING RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL

Defendant-Movant.

On March 28, 2011, the Court entered an Order (Dkt. No. 3) advising Jorge
Navarrete-Sanchez that his Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be dismissed as
untimely unless he presented evidence to the Court within thirty days that he had been
diligently pursing his rights and extraordinary circumstances existed preventing timely
filing. See United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citing Pace v. DeGugliemo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). As the Court noted in that Order,
the deadline for filing his § 2255 Motion was May 10, 2009. Order (Dkt. 3). He did not
file it until December 6, 2010, more than a year and a half after the deadline had passed.

Navarrete-Sanchez did not respond by April 27, 2011. Therefore, the Court
entered an Order (Dkt. 4) and Judgment (Dkt. 5) on May 10, 2011, dismissing his § 2255
Motion. On May 31, 2011, Navarrete-Sanchez filed a Motion for Relief from

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 1

Judgment/Order (Dkt. 6) and his Response (Dkt. 7) to the show cause order. He urges the
Court to relieve him of the Order and Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1)
and to consider his contemporaneously filed response to the order to show cause. His
motion is essentially a motion for the Court to reconsider its Order of May 10, 2011.
A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if “1) the motion is ‘necessary to
correct ‘manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;’ 2) the moving
party presents ‘newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;’ 3) the motion is
necessary to ‘prevent manifest injustice;’ or 4) there is an ‘intervening change in
controlling law.’” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original omitted) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d
1253, 1254 n.1. (9th Cir. 1999)). Rule 60(b)(1) provides for relief from an order or
judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1).
In his motion and response, Navarrete-Sanchez states that his “Scrivener/JailHouse Lawyer” was sent to the Segregated Housing Unit from March 9, 2011 to May
2011 on an allegedly frivolous violation. While, if true, his jail-house lawyer’s
unavailability during the time for responding to the order to show cause may explain why
Navarrete-Sanchez did not timely respond, it does not rise to the level necessary for Rule
59(e) or Rule 60(b)(1) relief. Even if it did, however, and the Court considered the
response, Navarrete-Sanchez would not be entitled to a finding of equitable tolling.
Equitable tolling is warranted in very limited circumstances. Spitsyn v. Moore,
ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 2

345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 (2002) (noting “[w]e have made clear . . . that equitable
tolling is ‘unavailable in most cases’” and that “the required threshold necessary to
trigger equitable tolling [under AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the
rule”) (citations omitted)).
As the Government points out in its Response (Dkt. 8), whether or not NavarreteSanchez’s jail-house lawyer was unavailable from March to May 2011 is completely
irrelevant to his failure to file a timely § 2255 motion during the one-year period after his
conviction became final. He has not demonstrated that he had been diligently pursuing his
right to file a § 2255 motion and that extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing.
In response to the Government’s argument, Navarrete-Sanchez filed a further response
(Dkt. 9) alleging that his trial counsel did not advise him that the one-year limitations
period had begun to run. This additional allegation likewise does not provide the requisite
showing for equitable tolling.
Generally, attorney negligence does not constitute extraordinary circumstances
even if that negligence includes a miscalculation of the statute of limitations. Lawrence v.
Florida, 127 S. Ct. 1079, 1085 (2007) (“Attorney miscalculation is simply not sufficient
to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the postconviction context where prisoners
have no constitutional right to counsel.”). Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to
counsel for a collateral attack on a conviction. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,
555 (1987). The right to counsel “extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Id.
ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 3

Because there is not right to counsel for postconviction proceedings, an attorney’s error in
failing to advise a defendant of the statute of limitations period cannot excuse the
untimely filing. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 757 (1991) (“Because Coleman
had no right to counsel to pursue his appeal in state habeas, any attorney error that led to
the default of Coleman’s claims in state court cannot constitute cause to excuse the
default in federal habeas.”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Navarette-Sanchez’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment/Order (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.

DATED: October 17, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 4