United States v. Espinoza
663 F. App'x 678
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Alejandro Espinoza filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court denied relief in 2009.
- The Tenth Circuit previously denied a certificate of appealability (COA) on most claims in earlier appeals; some rulings are recorded in reported App'x decisions.
- Espinoza later filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion alleging the district court failed to rule on his ineffectiveness claims; the district court denied that motion in 2016 after concluding it had already ruled and the claims lacked merit.
- Espinoza then moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) and 59(e) to amend or alter the judgment; the district court denied those motions as well.
- On appeal, Espinoza sought a COA to challenge the denials; the Tenth Circuit treated the narrow procedural question whether the district court had in fact ruled on the ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded Espinoza failed to make the requisite substantial showing of a constitutional violation, denied the COA, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to rule on Espinoza's ineffective-assistance claims | Espinoza contended the court never addressed some ineffectiveness claims (basis for Rule 60(b) relief) | District court asserted it had addressed those claims in the 2009 ruling and reexamined them in 2016, finding them meritless | Court held the 2009 decision had addressed the claims; no error in district court's conclusion |
| Whether Espinoza is entitled to a COA to appeal the denial of Rule 60(b), 52(b), and 59(e) motions | Espinoza argued errors meriting appellate review and relief | Government argued Espinoza failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional right and prior COA denials and law-of-the-case bar re-litigation | COA denied: reasonable jurists would not debate that the claims were resolved and meritless |
| Whether any additional claims are fairly presented for § 2255 relief on this appeal | Espinoza attempted to press merits of ineffective-assistance claims anew | Court noted claims were already presented in original § 2255 briefing and prior appeals; not fairly raised here | Court declined to consider new or reasserted merits arguments; barred by prior proceedings and law of the case |
| Whether procedural quirks entitled a pro se litigant to reconsideration | Espinoza suggested procedural complexity excused re-filing issues | Court emphasized Espinoza had prior opportunities to present claims and had received de novo review in 2016 | Court found no procedural deprivation; no basis to overturn prior rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (certificate of appealability standards)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)
- In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2009) (limits on construing pro se pleadings and law-of-the-case discussion)