Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02707/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02707-0/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

---

1

18-CV-2707-GPC

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

VICTOR FERNANDEZ,

Petitioner-Defendant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

Case No.: 18-CV-2707-GPC

Related Case No. 14-CR-277-GPC

ORDER DENYING AND 

DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, 

OR CORRECT SENTENCE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2255

On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, Victor Fernandez (“Petitioner”), a federal 

prisoner proceeding pro se, moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective 

assistance of counsel. (Dkt. No. 285). On January 2, 2019, Respondent filed a Response 

to Defendant’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate arguing that any collateral challenges should be 

dismissed without prejudice until Petitioner has exhausted his appeal with the Court of 

Appeals. (Dkt. No. 287). On January 18, 2019, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Brief in 

Support of § 2255 Motion to Vacate where he asserts his trial counsel failed to “file 

Petitioner’s requested notice of appeal and failed to consult with Petitioner after 

sentencing concerning the appeal”. (Dkt. No. 288). For the following reasons, the Court

DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2255 Petition. The Court also DENIES a 

Case 3:18-cv-02707-GPC Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-2707-GPC

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

certificate of appealability.

I. Background

On January 22, 2018, Petitioner plead guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Computer Hacking under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), (c)(3)(A), and 

Aggravated Identity Theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) and was sentenced to 129 

months in prison. (Dkt. No. 264).

On October 29, 2018, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit (“Court of Appeals”). On November 5, 2018, the Court of Appeals 

issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Petitioner’s appeal should not be dismissed for 

lack of a timely notice of appeal. (COA #:18-50388; Dkt. No. 3-1). On December 10, 

2018, Petitioner filed his Response to Order to Show Cause (COA #:18-50388; Dkt. No. 

8). The case is still pending with the Court of Appeals.

II. Discussion

Petitioner contends that this court should vacate his sentence. (Dkt. No. 285). 

Respondent counters that the Court of Appeals has “repeatedly and unambiguously ruled 

that habeus corpus petitions like Petitioner’s that are brought while an appeal is pending 

. . . should be dismissed without prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 287). For the following reasons, 

this Court finds that it lacks authority to decide Petitioner’s § 2255 motion while his 

direct appeal is pending. The Court also finds that Petitioner has not satisfied the 

requirements for issuance of a certificate of appealability.

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] district court should not entertain a habeas 

corpus petition while there is an appeal pending in this court or in the Supreme Court.”

Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original) (citing 

Black v. United States, 269 F.2d 38, 41 (9th Cir. 1959) and Nemec v. United States, 184 

F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1950)). However, a district court may entertain a collateral motion 

during the pendency of a direct appeal if “extraordinary circumstances” outweigh the 

Case 3:18-cv-02707-GPC Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-2707-GPC

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

considerations of administrative convenience and judicial economy. United States v. 

Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 1981); see Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings in 

the District Courts, Rule 5, Adv. Comm. Notes (“While there is no jurisdictional bar to 

raising a motion to vacate a sentence while the direct appeal is pending, a district court 

should not consider such a motion absent extraordinary circumstances, since disposition 

of the direct appeal could render the motion moot.”) (emphasis added) (quoting Womack 

v. United States, 395 F.2d 630, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see also United States 

v. Reclusado, Nos. 97-50125, 98-56094, 1999 WL 556455, at *1 (9th Cir. July 29, 1999)

(unpublished). The purpose of this rule is to mitigate the risk of duplicitous and 

conflicting judicial administration. Taylor, 648 F.2d at 572.

Here, Petitioner has not asserted any “extraordinary circumstances” for the Court 

to consider his petition pending his direct appeal with the Ninth Circuit and based on the 

Court’s review of the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in his petition, 

extraordinary circumstances do not exist. In Taylor, the court found the defendant’s 

challenge to the truth of the government’s representations were a “clear, detailed, 

plausible, and unrebutted” claim of governmental misconduct which reached the very 

foundation of defendant's conviction constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Id. at

574. Accordingly, because no extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated or 

exist in this case, the Court concludes it lacks the authority to consider Petitioner’s § 

2255 motion while his direct appeal is still pending. See United States v. Diaz-Martinez, 

71 F.3d 946, 953 (1st Cir. 1995) (“The settled rule in this circuit . . . is that the district 

court should decline to hear claims for relief based on allegedly ineffective assistance of 

counsel until the direct appeal is decided, unless “extraordinary circumstances” are 

demonstrated.”). 

A. Certificate of Appealability

A § 2255 movant cannot appeal from the denial or dismissal of his § 2255 motion 

unless he has first obtained a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate 

of appealability will issue only when a movant has made “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard when the 

Case 3:18-cv-02707-GPC Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-2707-GPC

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

court has dismissed a § 2255 motion (or claims within a § 2255 motion) on procedural 

grounds, the movant must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable (1) whether 

the court was correct in its procedural ruling, and (2) whether the motion states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Here, no reasonable jurist would find dismissal of Petitioner's § 2255 motion 

debatable. Therefore, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner’s 

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court also 

DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02707-GPC Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4