Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00373/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00373-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Cruz Lopez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

v. 

GUILLERMO CRUZ LOPEZ, 

Defendant/Petitioner. 

No. 2:10-cr-0373 GEB AC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Before the court are petitioner’s amended motion for post-conviction relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255, and respondent’s motion to dismiss the § 2255 application. In the alternative to 

dismissal, respondent seeks summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the 

undersigned recommends that the § 2255 motion be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, 

and therefore does not reach the other issues presented. 

BACKGROUND 

 On August 26, 2010, petitioner was indicted on charges of (1) conspiracy to manufacture 

at least 1,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1); (2) manufacture of 

at least 1,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (3) possession of a 

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking operation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). 

ECF No. 1. Petitioner was arraigned on the charges on September 14, 2010, and not guilty pleas 

were entered. On September 29, 2010, CJA counsel Gilbert A. Roque was substituted for the 

Case 2:10-cr-00373-GEB-AC Document 57 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Assistant Federal Defender who had represented petitioner at his initial appearance. ECF No. 9. 

A change of plea hearing was held on February 11, 2011. Pursuant to a conditional plea 

agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), ECF No. 19, petitioner pled guilty to Count One. On April 

29, 2011, petitioner was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment followed by 60 months 

supervised release. ECF No. 25. The judgment and commitment order was signed on May 11, 

2011. ECF No. 26. Petitioner did not appeal. 

 On June 24, 2013, the court docketed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 30.1 On July 11, 2013, respondent was ordered to answer. 

ECF No. 33. On August 5, 2013, petitioner filed a “Motion to Respond To United States 

Magistrate Judge Allison Claire’s Order,” which was docketed as a Response/Statement. ECF 

No. 36. This document recites factual allegations related to the underlying criminal case and 

petitioner’s claims for relief. Id. On August 2, 2013, respondent filed a motion for: (1) “a 

comprehensible and intelligible statement of defendant’s § 2255 claims,” (2) an extension of time 

to respond to the §2255 petition, (3) leave to take discovery, and (4) an order declaring the 

attorney-client privilege waived by petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance. ECF No. 37. 

On August 20, 2013, the court directed petitioner to file an amended petition containing all his 

claims, and set a new schedule, but otherwise denied respondent’s motion. ECF No. 39. 

 On September 19, 2013, petitioner filed a document that is captioned “Motion to Respond 

Judge’s Order As Traverse” and that was docketed as an Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside 

or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 40. This document states facts related to 

petitioner’s claims, but does not comprehensively present all petitioner’s factual allegations and 

grounds for relief. 

On October 2, 2013, respondent sought an extension of time to answer the “amended § 

2255 motion,” and renewed the government’s requests for discovery and an order finding waiver 

of attorney-client privilege. ECF No. 41. The request for an extension of time was granted, and 

the requests for discovery and an order regarding waiver of privilege were denied as premature. 

 

1

 The proof of service supports a constructive filing date of June 20, 2013 under the “mailbox 

rule” announced in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). See id. at 13. 

Case 2:10-cr-00373-GEB-AC Document 57 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 5
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

ECF No. 45. 

 On December 5, 2013, respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 47. Respondent again renewed its requests for discovery and an 

order finding waiver of attorney-client privilege. Id. Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion 

to dismiss. ECF No. 56. The government did not reply. 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

 The government moves to dismiss the petition as untimely and as barred by the plea 

agreement’s waiver of collateral attack. ECF No. 47. The government further argues that 

petitioner’s claims are all meritless, and seeks their summary denial. Id. Because the petition 

must be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the court need address no other issues. 

A one-year period of limitation applies to a § 2255 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). “The 

limitation period shall run from . . . the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 

§ 2255(f)(1). Where, as here, a criminal defendant does not appeal, the conviction becomes final 

at the expiration of the time during which he could have appealed. United States v. Schwartz, 

274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner had ten days to appeal following entry of 

judgment. Rule 4, Fed. R. App. P. Judgment was entered against petitioner on May 11, 2011, 

ECF No. 25, so his time to appeal expired on May 21, 2011. Petitioner’s time to file a § 2255 

motion expired one year later on May 21, 2012. The initial § 2255 petition was filed on June 24, 

2013, over a year late. 

Because petitioner filed outside the limitations period, he may only proceed if he can 

demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling. United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (statute of limitations under § 2255 is subject to equitable tolling). A habeas petitioner 

is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently; 

and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. See 

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010); Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009).2 

An “extraordinary circumstance” has been defined as an external force that is beyond the 

 

2

 The standards developed in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, governing the habeas petitions of 

state prisoners, apply equally in the § 2255 context. Battles, 362 at 1196-97. 

Case 2:10-cr-00373-GEB-AC Document 57 Filed 12/22/14 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

inmate’s control. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). The diligence required 

for equitable tolling purposes is “reasonable diligence,” not “maximum feasible diligence.” See 

Holland, 560 U.S. at 2565; see also Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioner expressly invokes equitable tolling. 

See ECF No. 56 at 3 (“The Court has jurisdiction to grant an untimely motion of post conviction 

relief under extra-ordinary circumstances (EQUITABLE TOLL) which are beyond a petitioner’s 

control.”). However, the facts asserted in support of equitable tolling are limited to the 

circumstances that petitioner experienced during his period of pretrial detention. Petitioner 

complains that he was deprived of Spanish-language legal materials in the detention center where 

he was held during his trial. Id. He complains that “non-English speaking federal inmates are in 

limbo who plead guilty without knowing the nature of the accusations against them by the 

prosecutors.” Id. He explains that the language barrier and lack of Spanish-language resources 

prevented him from understanding the nature and consequences of his plea, and he attempts to 

link these facts regarding his conditions of pre-trial confinement to his allegations of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, district court error, and the involuntariness of his plea. Id. at 3-5. 

 A monolingual Spanish-speaker’s lack of access to Spanish-language legal information 

and assistance can, in appropriate circumstances and where other requirements are met, support 

equitable tolling. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3dr 1065 (9th Cir. 2006). However, it remains 

petitioner’s burden to demonstrate (1) that the extraordinary circumstances prevented timely 

filing, and (2) that he acted diligently in attempting to pursue relief. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 

544 U.S. 408 (2005). Petitioner must show that the asserted extraordinary circumstances were the 

cause of his untimeliness. Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 2003). The 

circumstances that petitioner here identifies as extraordinary cannot have caused his untimeliness, 

because they preceded it entirely. Petitioner proffers no facts regarding his post-conviction 

diligence or the circumstances relevant to his ability to file during the limitations period. 

The “threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling is very high, lest the exceptions 

swallow the rule.” Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Petitioner “bears the burden of showing that this extraordinary 

Case 2:10-cr-00373-GEB-AC Document 57 Filed 12/22/14 Page 4 of 5
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

exclusion should apply to him.” Id. Because petitioner has not met that burden here, his § 2255 

petition must be dismissed as untimely. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons explained above, it is IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 47, be GRANTED; and 

2. Petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF Nos. 30 & 40, be DISSMISSED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Courts order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 22, 2014 

Case 2:10-cr-00373-GEB-AC Document 57 Filed 12/22/14 Page 5 of 5