United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 5:17-CR-00068-7 EJD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEXANDER MARTINEZ-FLORES, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cr-00068-7 EJD 

 Case No. 5:21-cv-05492 EJD 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS UNTIMELY 

MOTION

 Presently before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Dismiss an untimely filed motion 

by Defendant Alexander Martinez-Flores (“Defendant”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 

383. Having reviewed both the United States’ Motion and Defendant’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate, 

the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Racketeering Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1962(d), one count of Conspiracy to Commit Extortion by Force in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1951(a), one count of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in Aid of Racketeering in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), and one count of Use of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence 

Resulting in Death in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j). ECF No. 320. Defendant was thereafter 

sentenced to a custodial term of 360 months and five years of supervised release. ECF No. 337. 

Judgment was entered accordingly on June 12, 2020. ECF No. 338. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(b), Defendant had fourteen days from that date of the judgment within which 

to file an appeal. However, consistent with Defendant’s plea agreement, Defendant did not appeal 

his conviction. Thus, the conviction became final on June 28, 2020. 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 425 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 5:17-CR-00068-7 EJD 

 On July 16, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 378. On July 30, 2021, the Court ordered the United States 

to respond, either by filing an Answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. ECF No. 379. 

The United States filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Defendant’s motion was filed 

beyond the statute of limitations. ECF No. 383. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct a 

sentence by demonstrating (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of 

the United States, (2) the court was without justification to impose such a sentence, (3) the sentence 

was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or (4) that the sentence is otherwise subject to 

collateral attack. “Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that 

the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United 

States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law with respect thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). 

 Section 2255(f) imposes a one-year statute of limitation for all motions brought under that 

statute. That section provides “[t]he limitation period shall run from the latest of— 

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by 

governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United 

States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by 

such governmental action; 

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme 

Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and 

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or 

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could 

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 425 Filed 05/03/23 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 5:17-CR-00068-7 EJD 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Defendant does not dispute that his motion is untimely. Instead, he argues that the one-year 

limitations bar is subject to equitable tolling because he has acted diligently under the circumstances 

while under quarantine due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 378, at 12–13. 

 “Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two 

elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary 

circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). As Defendant 

himself as cited, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “equitable tolling is unavailable in most 

cases, and is appropriate only if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it 

impossible to file a petition on time.” Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[T]he threshold necessary to trigger equitable 

tolling under AEDPA is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Id. (brackets omitted). 

 Defendant’s cursory references to quarantine and lockdowns are insufficient to establish 

“extraordinary circumstances” to warrant equitable tolling. District courts have widely found that 

prison lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic do not constitute “extraordinary circumstances,” 

especially where defendants fail to specify how the lockdowns impacted their ability to pursue their 

claims. See, e.g., Valles v. Allison, 2023 WL 2447520, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023) (collecting 

cases); Gibson v. Allison, 2022 WL 17345919, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (collecting cases), 

report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17340463 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022); Dragasits v. 

Covello, 2022 WL 207730, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022) (collecting cases). Here, Defendant does 

not describe any efforts or diligence on his part to timely pursue his claims, such as attempting to 

access the prison law library, nor does he state how lockdown conditions impacted his otherwise 

diligent attempts to timely file his § 2255 motion. 

 To the extent Defendant argues that his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance delayed his 

understanding of his plea’s consequences, the Court similarly finds this argument insufficient to 

establish Defendant’s diligence or extraordinary circumstances. Defendant does not describe what 

his mistaken understanding of his plea was or how it delayed his apprehension of his claim. Nor 

does he provide the date on which he discovered the facts supporting his claim so that a modified 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 425 Filed 05/03/23 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO. 5:17-CR-00068-7 EJD 

limitations period may be calculated. Without almost any factual allegations, the Court finds that 

Defendant’s untimely § 2255 motion is not entitled to equitable tolling for either the delays relating 

to his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance or any prison lockdowns due to the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

 Because the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate “extraordinary 

circumstances” to justify equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations, his § 2555 motion 

is time barred. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Because Defendant has not demonstrated diligence or extraordinary circumstances 

obstructing the pursuit of his claims, he is not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA 

statute of limitations. Therefore, the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the untimely filed § 2255 

motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED as time barred. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 3, 2023 

 

 EDWARD J. DAVILA 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 425 Filed 05/03/23 Page 4 of 4