Martinez v. Sims et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt. IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, Martinez must file a response showing cause, if any, why his § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely. (mm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RAYMOND M. MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Civ. No. 18-559 JB/GJF
DWIGHT SIMS and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is Raymond Martinez’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
[ECF. No. 1]. Martinez challenges his state court convictions for criminal sexual penetration and
enticement of a child based on, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons below,
the Court will require Martinez to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as
untimely.
I. Background
A jury convicted Martinez of the above-mentioned charges on June 28, 2007. ECF. 1 at 1;
Case No. D-101-CR-2006-00431. 1 The state court sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment.
ECF. 1 at 1. Judgment on the conviction and sentence was entered February 18, 2008. See
Judgment/Order in D-101-CR-2006-00431. Martinez appealed, and the New Mexico Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment by a mandate issued May 3, 2011. ECF. No. 1 at 2-3. Martinez
did not appeal further. The judgment therefore became final no later than June 2, 2011, after the
1
The Court took judicial notice of the state court criminal docket. See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192
n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts have “discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records ... and certain other courts
concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”); Stack v. McCotter, 2003 WL 22422416
(10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (finding that a state district court’s docket sheet was an official court record subject to
judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201).
expiration of the 30-day period for seeking additional review. See Locke v. Saffle, 237 F.3d 1269,
1273 (10th Cir. 2001) (A petitioner’s judgment becomes final for purposes of § 2254 when the time
for seeking state appellate review expires); NMRA, Rule 12-502 (providing that a “petition for writ
of certiorari shall be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within thirty (30) days after final action by
the Court of Appeals”).
There was no substantive activity in Martinez’s criminal case between 2012 and 2014. See
Case No. D-101-CR-2006-00431. On July 23, 2014, he filed a state habeas petition. ECF No. 1
at 4. The state court denied the petition, and he continued to file various pro se collateral attacks
through 2018. Id. at 4-19. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied Martinez’s most recent
petition for writ of certiorari on May 15, 2018. Id. at. 19. On June 15, 2018, Martinez filed the
instant § 2254 petition. ECF No. 1.
III. Timeliness of the 2254 Petition
Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody must generally be filed
within one year after the defendant’s conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The
one-year limitation period can be extended:
(1)
While a state habeas petition is pending, § 2244(d)(2);
(2)
Where unconstitutional state action has impeded the filing of a federal habeas
petition, § 2244(d)(1)(B);
(3)
Where a new constitutional right has been recognized by the Supreme Court, §
2244(d)(1)(C); or
(4)
Where the factual basis for the claim could not have been discovered until later, §
2244(d)(1)(C).
2
Equitable tolling may also available “when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and
demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his
[or her] control.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000).
The one-year limitation period appears to have expired in June 2012, about six years before
Martinez filed his federal § 2254 petition. The filing of his state habeas petitions after the
expiration of the limitation period did not – as Martinez may believe – restart the clock or otherwise
immunize the untimely federal petition. See Gunderson v. Abbott, 172 Fed. App’x. 806, 809 (10th
Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (“A state court [habeas] filing submitted after the … deadline does not
toll the limitations period.”); Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting
the petitioner could not taking advantage of tolling “for time spent in state post-conviction
proceedings because his applications for post-conviction relief were not filed until after … the end
of the limitations period.…”). The Court will therefore require Martinez to show cause within
thirty (30) days of entry of this Order why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
Failure to timely comply may result in dismissal of the habeas action without further notice. See
Hare v, Ray, 232 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 2000) (the district court may sua sponte dismiss an untimely
Section 2254 petition where the petitioner fails to identify circumstances that would support
tolling).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order,
Martinez must file a response showing cause, if any, why his § 2254 habeas petition should not be
dismissed as untimely.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?