Barrios v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by the defendant to withdraw his previously filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The court granted the motion, administratively terminated the § 2255 motion and the related civil action, and noted that future § 2255 motions would not be considered 'second or successive' but that Rehaif-based claims would be time-barred.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendant's Motion to Withdraw 2255 Motion“Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to withdraw his 2255 motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for withdrawing a motion, finding 'good cause' based on the defendant's request and the government's opposition. The decision to grant the withdrawal is consistent with procedural rules allowing parties to withdraw motions. |
Clarifying that future 2255 motions are not 'second or successive'“Because the Court did not reach the merits of Defendant’s 2255 motion, any future 2255 motion will not be considered a “‘second or successive” motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), which holds that a motion that is dismissed without reaching the merits does not count as a 'second or successive' motion for purposes of the gatekeeping provision. |
Noting that future Rehaif-based collateral challenges are barred by the statute of limitations“However, any future collateral challenge to his conviction and sentence based on the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2019 opinion in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___ , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations absent equitable tolling or some other exception.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) applies to § 2255 motions. Since the Rehaif decision was issued in 2019 and the current date is 2020, the limitations period for a Rehaif-based claim (which would typically run from the date the right became retroactive or the date of the finality of the judgment, depending on specific circumstances, but generally the 1-year clock starts when the right is recognized or the judgment becomes final) has likely expired or is expiring, barring the claim absent tolling. |
Directing the Clerk to administratively terminate the 2255 motion and the related civil action“Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively terminate Defendant’s 2255 motion [Doc. No. 92] and terminate the related civil action [Case No. 20cv939-MMA].” | agree with court This is a standard administrative order following the grant of the motion to withdraw. Terminating the case is the appropriate procedural step once the underlying motion is withdrawn. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the law regarding the withdrawal of motions, the definition of 'second or successive' motions under Castro, and the statute of limitations under § 2255(f). The court clearly states its reasoning and the legal basis for its decisions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 13cr3932-MMA Related Civil Case No. 20cv939-MMA 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 2255 14 SAUL DEMETRIOS BARRIOS, MOTION 15 Defendant.
16 [Doc. No. 110] 17 18 On May 24, 2016, Defendant Saul Demetrios Barrios pleaded guilty to possessing 19 with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, 20 section 841(a)(1), and to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation Title 18, 21 sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See Doc. No. 78. On March 6, 2017, the Court 22 sentenced Defendant to a 188-month custodial term. See Doc. No. 90. Defendant, 23 proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to Title 24 28, section 2255 (“2255 motion”). See Doc. No. 92. The government filed a response in 25 opposition to Defendant’s motion. See Doc. No. 97. 26 Defendant, proceeding through counsel, now moves to withdraw his 2255 motion. 27 See Doc. No. 110. Defendant makes this request “[i]n light of respondent’s opposition to 28 his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the terms of his plea agreement.” Id. at 1. ] Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 2 motion to withdraw his 2255 motion. Because the Court did not reach the merits of 3 || Defendant’s 2255 motion, any future 2255 motion will not be considered a “‘second or 4 successive” motion. See 28 U.S.C. 2255(h); see generally Castro v. United States, 540 5 || U.S. 375 (2003). However, any future collateral challenge to his conviction and sentence 6 || based on the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2019 opinion in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 7 |{___ , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), will be barred by the applicable statute of limitations absent 8 ||equitable tolling or some other exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 9 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to administratively terminate 10 || Defendant’s 2255 motion [Doc. No. 92] and terminate the related civil action [Case No. 11 }}20cv939-MMA]. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATE: September 15, 2020 Vathst Th re i he 14 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28