Valdez v. United States of America

Filing 3

ORDER: The Court directs Valdez to file a declaration within sixty days of the date of this order showing cause why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. For Valdez's convenience, a declaration form is attached to this order. If Valdez files a declaration within the time allowed, the Court will review it, and if proper, will order that the motion be served on Respondent. If Valdez fails to comply with this order, the motion will be denied as time-barred. No answer will be required at this time. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to file this order in both the civil and criminal cases. Because Valdez has not at this time made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will n ot issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order wouldnot be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 9/21/2022) (ama)

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 6

USDCSDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALEXIS VALDEZ,

pocUMENT

ELEC·TRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:_______
DATE FILED:

Movant,

o/(--z,,r

I

/t)

22-CV-7626 (KMW)
l 7-CR-0487 (I<MW)

-against-

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
KIMBA M. WOOD, United States Dish'ict Judge:

Movant Alexis Valdez ("Valdez"), currently incarcerated at United States Penitentiary
Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania, brings this prose motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging
the legality of his sentence entered in United States v. Valdez, ECF l:l 7-CR-0487, 266 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 17, 2019). For the following reasons, the Court directs Valdez to file a declaration within
sixty days of the date of this order showing cause why this motion should not be denied as time­
barred.

BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2019, Valdez pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base, and (2) unlicensed dealing in firearms. See Valdez,
ECF 1: 17-CR-0487, 266. Valdez appealed his conviction, and on March 20, 2020, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an order granting: (1) appellate cmmsel's
motion to withdraw as counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
(2) the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal as to the conviction and sentence. 1 See id.
(ECF 292) (Mandate issued May 22, 2020). He now asserts claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
1

The electronic case filing system for the Comt of Appeals indicates that the order
dismissing Valdez's appeal was entered the same date it was isSlled.

'2--t..,,

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 6

Following the dismissal of his appeal, Valdez notified the Court of his intention to file a
Section 2255 motion. In an undated letter, received by the Court on September 18, 2020, Valdez
requested information regarding the commencement of the statute of limitations for his Section
2255 motion, noting that he and his family were unable to communicate with his lawyer to
confirm the date by which he needed to file his motion. See id. (ECF 295). The Court informed
Valdez, in an October 14, 2020, memo-endorsement, that the Court was unable to provide Valdez
with legal advice. See id. (ECF 297).
The following year, on April 15, 2021, the Court received another letter from Valdez,
requesting an extension of time to file his Section 2255 motion. See id. (ECF 313 .) On April 21,
2021, the Court denied this request because Valdez had failed to allege any facts in support of his
grounds for relief. See id. (ECF 316). This memo-endorsement was returned to the comi as
undeliverable because the mailing address was incorrect. See id. (ECF 317). On June 8, 2021,
the comi's Clerk's Office resent the memo-endorsement to the correct address, and this mailing
was not returned to the comi.
On March 20, 2020, the United States Comi of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered
judgment granting the Government's motion to dismiss Valdez's direct appeal. Under revised
Supreme Comi rules, extending the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from 90 days to
150 days,2 Valdez had until August 17, 2020, to seek review in the Supreme Comi. 3 His time to

2

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Comi temporarily extended the time
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, from 90 days to 150 days for any case where the petition
was due on or after March 19, 2020. On July 19, 2021, the Supreme Court rescinded the
extension for any case in which the relevant lower comi judgment, order denying discretionary
review, or order denying a timely petition for rehearing was issued on or after July 19, 2021.
Valdez's motion, had he filed one, would have been due after March 19, 2020, but before July
19,2021.
3 The

time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari staiis on the date the judgment is
entered by the court of appeals, not the date the comi of appeals issues its mandate. See Sup. Ct.

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 6

file a Section 2255 motion expired one year later, on August 17, 2021. One year later, on August
17, 2022, Valdez delivered his Section 2255 motion to prison authorities for mailing. 4 (ECF 1, at
17.)
DISCUSSION

Valdez's application appears to be time-barred. A federal prisoner seeking relief under
Section 2255 generally must file a motion within one year from the date when: (I) the judgment
of conviction becomes final; (2) a government-created impediment to making such a motion is
removed; (3) the right asserted is initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if it has been made
retroactively available to cases on collateral review; or (4) the facts supporting the claim(s) could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Valdez
delivered his motion to prison authorities for filing on August 17, 2022, one year after the statute
of limitations to file his motion expired.
The Court therefore directs Valdez to show cause within sixty days why this motion
should not be denied as time-baned. Valdez should allege any facts showing that he has been
pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from
timely submitting this motion. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2001)

R. 13 .3 ("The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of entry of the
judgment or order sought to be reviewed, and not from the issuance date of the mandate (or its
equivalent under local practice).")
4

Under the "prison mailbox rule," courts generally treat documents submitted by
individuals who are incarcerated as deemed filed on the date that the individual delivers the
document to prison authorities for mailing. Noble v. Kelly, 246 F.3d 93, 97-98 (2d Cir. 2001).
Where such a litigant does not include the date he delivered his documents to prison authorities,
courts generally rely on the signature date as the date the documents were delivered. See Hardy v.
Conway, 162 F. App'x 61, 62 (2d Cir. 2006). ("[I]n the absence of contrary evidence, district
courts in this circuit have tended to assume that prisoners' papers were given to prison officials
on the date of their signing.").

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 6

(holding that extraordinary circumstances may warrant tolling the statute of limitations for
§ 2255 motions).

CONCLUSION
The Comt directs Valdez to file a declaration within sixty days of the date of this order
showing cause why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. For Valdez's convenience, a
declaration form is attached to this order. If Valdez files a declaration within the time allowed,
the Comt will review it, and if proper, will order that the motion be served on Respondent. If
Valdez fails to comply with this order, the motion will be denied as time-barred. No answer will
be required at this time.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to file this order in both the civil and criminal cases.
Because Valdez has not at this time made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The Court ce1tifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S . 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

'f .- 2.1 ... .2.1.

New York, New York

I~

7)1..;

U,,n-il

KIMBA M. WOOD
United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 5 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Write the first and last name of each plaintiff or
petitioner.
Case No. _ _ _ CV _ _ _ _ _ __
-against-

Write the first and last name of each defendant or
respondent.

DECLARATION

Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, "in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment," or "in Response to Order to Show Cause."

I,

----------------

,

declare under penalty of perjury that the

following facts are true and correct:
In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court
order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents.

Rev. 10/3/16

Case 1:22-cv-07626-KMW Document 3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 6 of 6

Attach additional pages and documents if necessary.

Executed on (date)

Signature

Name

Prison Identification # (if incarcerated)

Address

Telephone Number (if available)

City

State

Zip Code

E-mail Address (if available)

Page2