Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01353-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

4

19-cv1353-BEN

 12-cr-2999-BEN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19-cv1353-BEN

 12-cr-2999-BEN

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255

Movant Carlos Alberto Garcia filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 7, 2014. Docket No. 41. The motion 

was denied on November 3, 2015. Order, Docket No. 47. On July 19, 2019, Garcia filed 

a second motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Docket No. 49.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a 

district court has only limited authority to hear a claim presented in a second or 

successive habeas motion. “The court must deny a second or successive motion unless 

the court of appeals first certifies that the motion relies on a new rule of constitutional 

law that is retroactively applicable or presents new evidence that meets the criteria set 

forth in § 2255(h).” Mitchell v. United States, No. 18-17031, 2020 WL 2078991, at *6 

(9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007); Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005)).

Garcia has not obtained the necessary approval from the Court of Appeals to 

prosecute his second motion. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence is DENIED.

A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could 

Case 3:19-cv-01353-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
4

19-cv1353-BEN

 12-cr-2999-BEN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2020 ______________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01353-BEN Document 2 Filed 05/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2