Ortiz-Sanchez v. Matias-De-Leon et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER granted 26 Motion to Dismiss; denied 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Carmen C. Cerezo on 9/29/2011. (mld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOSE ALBERTO ORTIZ-SANCHEZ
Petitioner
vs
CIVIL 08-2236CCC
YUDITH MATIAS DE LEON, Warden; and
ROBERTO SANCHEZ-RAMOS, Secretary of
Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Respondents
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner José A. Ortiz-Sánchez’s (hereinafter “Petitioner” or
“Ortiz-Sánchez”) writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se on October 28,
2008 (docket entry 2).
On November 18, 2010, Respondents Guillermo A.
Somoza-Colombani1 and Judith M. Matías-León filed a Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition
as to all Respondents (docket entry 26). On January 25, 2011, the Court ordered Petitioner
to respond to said motion to dismiss by February 28, 2011 (docket entry 29), but he failed
to comply. As such, the matter is ready for disposition. For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (docket entry 2) is hereby
DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Ortiz-Sánchez is a state prisoner presently confined in a penal institution
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, after being convicted following a jury verdict of
robbery and a violation of Article 4 of the Puerto Rico Weapons law and receiving a
sentence of forty five (45) years (docket entry 26 at page 1). Petitioner claims in his habeas
corpus petition that there were a series of irregularities during the trial held in his local
1
Petitioner brought this action against the Secretary of Justice of the Commonwealth
at the time of its filing, Roberto Sánchez-Ramos. He has since been replaced in that office
by Somoza-Colombani, who under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) is automatically substituted as a
party.
CIVIL 08-2236CCC
2
criminal case. Amongst them: (a) the prosecutors office withheld exculpatory evidence;
(b) the trial judge failed to dismiss the jury once it had been compromised; (c) witnesses’
testimony was perjured; (d) he was convicted using circumstantial evidence; (e) there was
no corroboration of witnesses’ testimony; and (f) ineffective assistance by his trial counsel
for failure to present evidence that would have cleared him of the charges. Petitioner’s
allegations, for the most part, are a random hodgepodge of conclusory assertions of what
he perceived happened or should have happened during his trial.
II.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to federal law, a prisoner who claims he is being held by a State
government in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States may file a civil lawsuit
in federal court seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A federal
court’s review of a § 2254 petition is not a direct review of a State court’s decision. The
petition is a separate civil suit considered as collateral relief. The federal habeas corpus is
not a constitutional, but rather a statutory, relief codified in § 2254.
Prisoners in state custody who choose to collaterally challenge in a federal habeas
proceeding their confinement are required to comply with the “independent and adequate
state ground doctrine”. See Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585 (1st Cir., February 19,
2009); citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730-31 (1991). As such Petitioner must
meet two initial requirements. First, petitioner is required to exhaust state judicial remedies,
either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings. The highest state court available
must have a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim which petitioner
seeks to raise in federal court. In order to fulfill this exhaustion requirement, the petitioner
must have fairly presented the substance of all of his federal constitutional claims to the
highest state court. Levine v. Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 44 F.3d 121, 124
(2nd Cir. 1995). The state court must have been apprised of both the factual and legal base
of those claims. Grey v. Hoke, 933 F.2d 117, 119 (2nd Cir. 1991). The United States
CIVIL 08-2236CCC
3
Supreme Court has held that in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner
requesting federal habeas corpus review is required to present claims to the state supreme
court even when its review is discretionary. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999).
The burden of proving that a federal habeas claim has been exhausted in state court lies
with the petitioner. Ortiz-Sánchez, however, has not met this initial burden.
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, there is a two-tier system for post conviction
relief. In order for Petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies, Ortiz-Sánchez must either
file a Rule 192.1 motion pursuant to the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure requesting
the trial court to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment (34 L.P.R.A. App. II, Rule 192.1),
or a petition pursuant to section 1741 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting a writ
of habeas corpus (34 L.P.R.A. §§ 1741-1743). An appeal may be filed from the subsequent
denial of a Rule 192.1 motion or of a section 1741 habeas petition. Once any of said
appeals has been denied by the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, then Petitioner must file a
writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, Id. Thus, pursuant to Puerto Rico law,
in order for Ortiz-Sánchez to properly file a section 2254 petition for relief before this Federal
Court, he must first exhaust at least one of the two post-conviction remedies provided by the
Commonwealth laws to the point of having either a Rule 192.1 motion or a habeas corpus
petition pursuant to section 1741 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reviewed by the
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (P.R.L.A. 34 section 1779).
In the instant case, Petitioner has failed to show that he exhausted either of the local
post-conviction remedies concerning the facts as alleged in his petition. A review of the
Puerto Rico Court of Appeals Resolution dated August 30, 2007 which was submitted by
Respondents as an attachment to their Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 26) reveals that said
Court concluded that even examining Petitioner’s writ in the light most favorable to him it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Court of Appeals reached this
determination upon finding that Ortiz-Sánchez had never filed a Rule 192.1 motion with the
CIVIL 08-2236CCC
4
Court of First Instance and as such his allegations as to his wrongful conviction could not
be entertained for the first time at the appeals level. See Exhibit 1 of docket entry 26.
If Ortiz-Sánchez had filed a Rule 192.1 motion or a habeas corpus petition pursuant
to section 1741 before the Court of First Instance, the order entered by said court would
have been appealable to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, and subsequently to the Puerto
Rico Supreme Court.
Díaz-Castro v. Román-Román, 638 F. Supp. 2d. 189
at 192 (D.P.R. 2010). After said appeals process had been exhausted, then Petitioner
could have resorted to this Court under section 2254. The Court reiterates that this is a
requirement for all local prisoners challenging their state conviction at the federal level.
Sánchez-Roa v. Marrero-Scaraballo, 2010 WL 500403 (D.P.R. 2010). This should have
been the procedural process followed by Ortiz-Sánchez, which in turn would have allowed
this Court to have jurisdiction over this matter. But since Petitioner failed to avail himself of
these proceedings, his federal petition for habeas relief pursuant to section 2254 cannot
proceed at this time.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner José A. Ortiz-Sánchez is
not entitled to federal habeas relief on the claims presented. Accordingly, Respondents’
Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 26) is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered DISMISSING
petitioner José A. Ortiz-Sánchez’s request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(docket entry 2), without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on September 29, 2011.
S/CARMEN CONSUELO CEREZO
United States District Judge
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?