United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is Petitioner Lucio Landeros-Valdez's
(hereinafter, “Valdez”) Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e). Crim. Dkt. 205; Civ. Dkt. 1. The United States of
America (hereinafter, “Government”) responds with
a Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Civ. Dkt. 4. The Court GRANTS the United States'
Motion and DENIES Valdez's Motion.
petition must be dismissed because it was filed after the
statute of limitation ran. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Valdez's conviction and
subsequently issued its mandate on September 12, 2013. Crim.
Dkt. 197. Valdez does not contest that he failed to seek a
writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the judgment became final on December 11, 2013.
See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003)
(holding that the one-year statute of limitations for claims
brought pursuant to Section 2255 begins after the time period
to file the petition for a writ of certiorari elapses); Sup.
Ct. R. 13 (requiring that petitions for writs of certiorari
be filed within 90 days of the issuance of the mandate).
Valdez did not file his petition until March 25, 2019; more
than six years after the statute of limitation ran.
than responding to the Government's statute of limitation
arguments, Valdez simply asserts that his original petition
invoked the savings clause in § 2255(e), which would
have the effect of converting his § 2255 petition into a
§ 2241 petition. Valdez's claim is that his sentence
was improperly enhanced based upon a juvenile conviction, and
that he is “actually innocent” of that
enhancement. While Valdez uses the correct buzz words, it is
analytically misguided. The problem is that his petition does
not include a claim for actual innocence; to the contrary,
Valdez acknowledges that he was convicted of a crime as a
17-year-old. Crim. Dkt. 205 at 2. This is fatal to his
argument that his petition falls under the “savings
clause” as it has been interpreted by the Ninth
Circuit. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898
(9th Cir. 2006) (“Along with many of our sister
circuits, we have held that a § 2241 petition is
available under the ‘escape hatch' of § 2255
when a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and
(2) has not had an “unobstructed procedural shot”
at presenting that claim.”). At bottom, Valdez's
petition is a thinly veiled § 2255 petition to which the
one-year statute of limitations applies. § 2255(f).
the Court will turn to whether a certificate of appealability
should issue in this case. The standard to obtain review is
lower than that required for the Petitioner to succeed on the
merits of his petition. Lambright v. Stewart, 220
F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000). To satisfy this lower
standard when the court has denied a § 2255 motion, a
petitioner must show reasonable minds could debate over the
resolution of the issues or that questions raised in the
petition deserve further review. Allen v. Ornoski,
435 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the record
in this case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would
not find its determinations regarding Valdez's claims to
be debatable or deserving of further review. Accordingly, the
Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to any
issue raised in Valedez's § 2255 motion.
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Valdez's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (Crim. Dkt. 205; Civ.
Dkt. 1) is DENIED.
Government's Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (Civ. Dkt. 4) is GRANTED.
Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case.
Mr. Camacho is advised that he may still request a
certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals pursuant to the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b) and Local Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a
copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit. The district
court's file in this case is ...