VASQUEZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA et al

Filing 17

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 3/4/16. 3/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FALIPE VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-2759

v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner’s pro se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), United States Magistrate David R.
Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16), and the pertinent state court record, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 2) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.1

1

Petitioner filed a Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 13, 2014, in which he challenges
the life sentence without parole imposed upon him in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
on February 4, 2000. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 15, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge
David R. Strawbridge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the
Petition be denied as untimely filed. (Doc. No. 10.) Magistrate Judge Strawbridge correctly
determined that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Petitioner had within one year following the date on
which the judgment of conviction became final to apply for habeas relief. (Id. at 6-7.) On
direct appeal, Petitioner’s petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
was denied on December 4, 2003, and Petitioner then had ninety days to petition for certiorari
in the United States Supreme Court, which he did not do. (Id. at 7.) Thus, the one-year statute
of limitations began on March 3, 2004, when Petitioner’s conviction became final. (Id.)
Because Petitioner did not file the present Petition until May 13, 2014, his Petition was
untimely filed.
Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on March 2,
2016. (Doc. No. 16.) His Objections, however, read more as a request that he “be appointed
bilingual and spanish-speaking counsel.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner apparently seeks appointment of
counsel because he does not speak English and has mental health impairments. (Id.) However,

2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that
reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:

/ s/ J oel H. S l om sk y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

no similar request had been made to the United States Magistrate Judge who issued the Report
and Recommendation in his case.
As noted, the Court has reviewed the Petition and Report and Recommendation, and is
approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation because the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus was untimely filed. The untimeliness of the Petition is so clear in this case that
any further action by the Court, including appointment of counsel, would not change the
decision of this Court.