Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00945/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00945-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Garcia-Mesa
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Carlos Garcia-Mesa,

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 99-734-PHX-RGS

CV 05-945-PHX-RGS

ORDER

Movant, Carlos Garcia-Mesa, presently confined at the United States Penitentiary in

Florence, Colorado, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 22, 2005. [Doc. # 529] The Government filed a Response on

June 6, 2005 [Doc. # 551], and Movant filed a Response to Government’s Opposition on

June 27, 2005 [Doc. # 557]. On March 30, 2006, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued

a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied. [Doc. # 580] In

a motion dated April 7, 2006, Movant requested an extension of time to prepare his

objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. # 582] In an April 24, 2006 Order, the

Court granted Movant an additional thirty days in which to file said objections. [Doc. # 583]

A review of the record shows that Movant failed to file any objections within this period of

time. However, in an untitled document dated April 9, 2006, Movant requested that the

Court “accept this petition also as the objections to the Magistrate’s Recommendations.”

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 6
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

- 2 -

[Doc. # 581] Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the entire record, including Movant’s

objections set forth in his April 9, 2006 pleading. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will adopt the Report and Recommendation and deny Movant’s § 2255 motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 15, 2001, the Court entered judgment and sentenced Movant to life

imprisonment, plus 235 years and terms of supervised release following jury convictions for

thirty-seven felony offenses, including conspiracy, hostage-taking, transporting and

harboring illegal aliens, interstate communications, and possession or use of a firearm during

a crime of violence. [Doc. # 390] Movant filed a direct appeal which was consolidated with

those of his co-defendants. On October 9, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed

Movant’s convictions and sentences. United States v. Torres-Espinoza, et al., 78 Fed. Appx.

563 (9th Cir. 2003).

Thereafter, one of Movant’s co-defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing and

petition for rehearing en banc on November 3, 2003, which was denied by the Ninth Circuit

on December 4, 2003. Movant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States

Supreme Court. On March 22, 2005, Movant filed the instant motion. Movant alleges three

grounds for relief: (1) that he was denied the right to consult with the Mexican Consulate

after his arrest; (2) that his conviction and sentence are the product of ineffective assistance

from his trial counsel; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on his direct

appeal. 

II. DISCUSSION

The government contends in its response that the petition is untimely and must

therefore be denied. The government argues that Movant filed his petition more than one

year after the judgment of conviction became final. Although Movant acknowledges this

argument in his reply, he presents nothing to contest the argument.

A federal prisoner’s petition for relief under § 2255 is subject to a one-year statute of

limitations that generally runs from “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes

final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “[A] judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court’s affirmation of the

conviction.” Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525 (2003). A petition for certiorari must

be filed within ninety days after the judgment or order to be reviewed. Sup. Ct. R. 13.

However, if a timely petition for rehearing is filed in the lower court by any party, the time

to file the petition for certiorari runs from the date of the denial of the petition for rehearing.

Id. This applies to all parties, whether or not they requested rehearing or joined the petition

for rehearing. Id. 

In the present case, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming the convictions and

sentences on October 9, 2003. However, the Ninth Circuit docket reflects that co-defendant

Ricardo Torres-Espinoza filed a timely petition for rehearing on November 3, 2003, which

was denied by the Ninth Circuit on December 4, 2003. Movant did not file a petition for writ

of certiorari after the petition for rehearing was denied. Accordingly, for statute of

limitations purposes, Movant’s judgment of conviction became final on March 3, 2004,

ninety days after the petition for rehearing was denied. Movant was required to file his §

2255 petition within one year of that date. 

Movant filed his petition on March 22, 2005, nearly three weeks after the limitations

period expired. As the Magistrate Judge explained in the Report and Recommendation, the

evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that Movant filed his petition after the statute of

limitations expired, and Movant has presented nothing in his pleadings to contest that

conclusion. 

The Court has considered the objections raised by Movant in his April 9, 2006

pleading. Movant argues that “he should not be held to the provisions that are set forth in

the AEDPA’s one year time limitation.” The Court finds Movant’s arguments unpersuasive.

On September 4, 2007, nearly one and one-half years after Movant filed his

objections, Movant filed two documents entitled “Petition to Have the May 8, 2004, on the

Certificate Operate as the Date Mesa Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255" [Doc. # 603] and “Mesa

Petition’s Judge Strand Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(6)” [Doc. # 604]. The

government filed a response on September 17, 2007. [Doc. # 605] In these untimely

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 6
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 1

 Movant makes no mention of the alleged August 2004 filing in this statement.

- 4 -

pleadings, which are not contemplated under the rules governing § 2255 motions, Mesa

offers an explanation for his failure to file within the statute of limitations, presumably in an

attempt to claim that equitable tolling should apply in this case. 

“AEDPA’s statute of limitations provision is subject to equitable tolling.” Corjasso

v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2002). However, as a general rule, equitable tolling is

not available in most cases and may be applied only when “extraordinary circumstances

beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Miles v. Prunty,

187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). Mesa claims, for the first time, that he initially filed his

petition on May 8, 2004, but “the court never responded.” He claims that he mailed a second

petition in August 2004, “which after several months was returned for failing to sign the

petition,” and that he “signed it and re-mailed the petition on March 22, 2005.” As evidence

to support his argument that the Court was responsible for his untimely filing, he points to

the Certificate of Service that is attached to the back of his untimely § 2255 motion that was

filed on March 28, 2005. [Doc. # 529] On this Certificate, Movant has typed the following

statement: “Superseding filing, Motion under Title 28 U.S.C. 2255. First attempted filing

was May 8, 2004 with no response from Court.”1

 Movant argues that this unverified

statement demonstrates that he indeed filed within the statute of limitations and, but for the

Court’s alleged lack of response, his motion would have been timely. Movant requests the

Court to accept the May 8, 2004 alleged attempted filing date as the actual date of filing.

Movant’s arguments are unavailing for two reasons. First, it is the policy of the Clerk

of the Court to docket all motions received in that office, even if they are deficient. (See,

e.g., co-defendant Andres Espinoza-Torres’ unsigned Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. # 501] and the Court’s subsequent

order allowing that defendant “30 days to file a completed and signed Certificate (as

attached)” [Doc. # 504] ). A review of the docket in this case fails to show that Movant filed

a § 2255 petition in either May or August, 2004, as he claims.

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

Second, Movant’s own pleadings belie his assertion that he attempted to file his §

2255 motion on May 8, 2004. A review of the record demonstrates that on May 7, 2004, one

day prior to Movant’s alleged attempted filing, Movant sought materials in order to file a §

2255 motion. See Movant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915 to Defer Cost for Providing Copy of Trial Transcript for Purposes of Filing

for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. # 493]. On June 21, 2004, the Court denied

said motion and directed the Clerk of the Court to provide Movant with a court-approved

form for filing a § 2255 motion. [Doc. # 494] On December 14, 2004, seven months after

Movant alleges he attempted to file his motion, Movant filed a Motion for Enlargement of

Time for Good Cause. [Doc. # 508] In its Order denying Movant’s motion, the Court noted

that Movant had not yet filed a § 2255 petition. [Doc. # 523]. Accordingly, Movant has

failed to demonstrate that he attempted to file a § 2255 motion on any occasion prior to his

filing on March 22, 2005, as reflected on the Court’s docket at Docket # 529. Equitable

tolling, therefore, does not apply here, and the petition is untimely.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

[Doc. # 580]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. # 529] 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Petition to Have the May 8, 2004,

on the Certificate Operate as the Date Mesa Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. # 603] 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Mesa Petition’s Judge Strand 

Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(6). [Doc. # 604]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in

accordance with this order.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00945-SRB Document 1 Filed 09/18/07 Page 6 of 6