Rodriguez-Iglesias v. Miranda-Rodriguez et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Respondents. The court will not grant Rodriguez a certificate of appealability, since a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has not been made. Petitioner may sti ll seek one directly from the First Circuit Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). Judgment shall enter summarily dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 12/29/2015.(mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3
4

ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ-IGLESIAS,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01527 (JAF)

v.
CESAR R. MIRANDA-RODRIGUEZ,
Secretary of Justice; NOEL LUGO, Warden,
Respondents.
5
6

OPINION AND ORDER

7

On or about August 11, 1995, petitioner Alexis Rodríguez-Iglesias (“Rodríguez”)

8

was convicted, following a jury trial in the Court of First Instance, Superior Court of

9

Mayagüez, of one count of sodomy and one count of lewd behavior and was sentenced,

10

as a recidivist, to concurrent prison terms of thirty years and fifteen years, respectively,

11

for performing anal sexual intercourse on a boy under the age of fourteen. (ECF Nos. 2

12

at 4; 16 ¶ 3; 21-1 at 15-16.) Rodríguez appealed the judgment of conviction to the Puerto

13

Rico Court of Appeals, but the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that Rodríguez

14

had fled from custody and thus forfeited his right to appeal. (ECF Nos. 2 at 5; 16 ¶ 4; 23-

15

1 at 5-8.) Rodríguez remained a fugitive from justice until his capture, ten years later, in

16

2005. (ECF No. 16 ¶ 3.) He has not attempted another direct appeal. (ECF No. 16 ¶ 4.)

17

On or about August 30, 2013, Rodríguez filed a post-judgment motion in the local

18

trial court, challenging his sentence as excessive or illegal under Puerto Rico law. (ECF

19

Nos. 2 at 6; 16 ¶ 5; 21-1 at 4.) The court denied the motion. (ECF Nos. 2 at 6; 16 ¶ 4;

20

21-1 at 5.) Rodríguez then petitioned the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals for a writ of

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01527 (JAF)

-2-

1

certiorari. (ECF Nos. 2 at 6; 16 ¶ 6; 21-1 at 3.) The Court of Appeals denied the writ,

2

finding that “the sentences imposed by the sentencing court were set in accordance with

3

the law, without there being abuse of discretion or an arbitrary or unreasonable action.”

4

(ECF No. 21-1 at 17-18; see also ECF Nos. 2 at 7; 16 ¶ 6.) In August 2014, the Puerto

5

Rico Supreme Court denied Rodríguez’s petition for a writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 2 at 7.)

6

On or about April 14, 2015, Rodríguez, who remains incarcerated in a Puerto Rico

7

prison, timely filed, in this court, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 2254.

9

conviction on eight separate grounds. (ECF No. 2 at 11-15.) The first seven grounds

10

allege, for the first time, constitutional violations during the pre-sentencing phase of

11

Rodríguez’s 1995 trial. (ECF No. 2 at 11-15.) The eighth ground renews Rodríguez’s

12

challenge to his sentence as excessive or illegal. (ECF No. 2 at 14.) On August 6, 2015,

13

respondent César R. Miranda-Rodríguez, the Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico, moved

14

the court to dismiss the petition, arguing, among other things, that Rodríguez had failed

15

to exhaust his state remedies as to the first seven grounds. (ECF No. 16 at 7-10.)

16

Rodríguez replied in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 23.) On October 8, 2015,

17

respondent Noel Lugo, the Warden of the Institution where Petitioner is housed,

18

requested to join the Motion to Dismiss, which request we granted on October 15, 2015.

19

(ECF Nos. 24 & 25.) Having reviewed those filings, the court finds that the allegations in

20

the habeas petition do not require an evidentiary hearing and that the appointment of

(ECF No. 2.)

The petition challenges the Commonwealth judgment of

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01527 (JAF)

-3-

1

counsel for Rodríguez is not warranted. 1 See Rule 8 of Rules Governing Section 2254

2

Cases in the United States District Courts.

3

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), “a

4

habeas applicant must ‘exhaust[] the remedies available in the courts of the State’ before

5

running to federal court.’” Sanchez v. Roden, 753 F.3d 279, 294 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting

6

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A)). “This obligation has its genesis in the principle ‘that as a

7

matter of comity, federal courts should not consider a claim in a habeas corpus petition

8

until after the state courts have had an opportunity to act.’” Id. (quoting Coningford v.

9

Rhode Island, 640 F.3d 478, 482 (1st Cir. 2011)). “Generally speaking, a petitioner’s

10

failure to exhaust all state remedies is ‘fatal to the prosecution of a federal habeas case.’”

11

Id. (quoting Coningford, 640 F.3d at 482).

12

exhausted unless a petitioner has ‘fairly and recognizably’ presented it to the state

13

courts.” Id. (quoting Casella v. Clemons, 207 F.3d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 2000)). “By this we

14

mean that a petitioner must have ‘tendered his federal claim in such a way as to make it

15

probable that a reasonable jurist would have been alerted to the existence of the federal

16

question.’” Id. (quoting Casella, 207 F.3d at 20) (internal quotations omitted). “Stated

17

somewhat differently, ‘the legal theory [articulated] in the state and federal courts must

18

be the same.’” Id. (quoting Clements v. Maloney, 485 F.3d 158, 162 (1st Cir. 2007))

19

(alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted).

1

“A claim based on federal law is not

The court has construed Rodríguez’s petition liberally because he is pro se. Foley v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 75 (1st Cir. 2014). “However, pro se status does not insulate a party from
complying with procedural and substantive law.” Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01527 (JAF)

-4-

1

The first seven grounds of relief that Rodríguez raises in his habeas petition are

2

“not properly exhausted under AEDPA” because he “never made” those “argument[s] in

3

any of his state court proceedings.” See Logan v. Gelb, 790 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2015)

4

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A)). Rodríguez’s eighth ground of relief is unexhausted

5

as well because, in state court, he challenged his sentence only on local-law grounds,

6

arguing that the sentence “exceed[ed] the maximum penalty provided under the law.”

7

(ECF No. 21-1 at 5) (quoting Rodríguez’s petition to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals

8

for a writ of certiorari from the denial of his post-judgment challenge to the sentence.) In

9

its opinion denying the petition for a writ of certiorari, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals

10

makes plain that Rodríguez’s sentence was both challenged and reviewed only under

11

Puerto Rico law. (See ECF No. 21-1.) Indeed, the record as a whole is clear that

12

Rodríguez did not “fairly and recognizably” present any federal claims about his sentence

13

to the Puerto Rico courts, such that “a reasonable jurist would have been alerted to the

14

existence of [a] federal question” in his post-judgment motion. See Sanchez at 294.

15

In response, Rodríguez does not deny that his post-judgment motion failed to raise

16

any federal-law claims. Instead, he argues that he had raised federal claims in the direct

17

appeal that was dismissed due to his fugitive status. (See ECF No 23.) But a dismissed

18

appeal, where a then-fugitive petitioner’s abandonment of his claims deprived the state of

19

an opportunity to rule on them, cannot exhaust any claims. See Sanchez at 294. After all,

20

the dismissed appeal is no different from having never taken an appeal, which is normally

21

“fatal” to a later habeas claim. See Logan, 790 F.3d at 72. Moreover, Rodríguez has not

22

made a credible argument for why any of his procedural defaults should be excused. See

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01527 (JAF)

-5-

1

id. at 72-73. In any event, Rodríguez has not shown that he merits habeas relief under the

2

high standard of error mandated in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See generally White v. Woodall,

3

134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014); Burt v. Titlow, 134 S. Ct. 10, 15-16 (2013).

4

When denying a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court must determine

5

whether the petitioner warrants a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules

6

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The court may issue

7

a certificate only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

8

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). No such

9

showing has been made here. Thus, the court will not grant Rodríguez a certificate. He

10

may still seek one directly from the First Circuit Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of

11

Appellate Procedure 22(b).

12

The court hereby GRANTS respondents’ motion to dismiss and summarily

13

DISMISSES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

14

Governing § 2254 Cases.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of December, 2015.

17
18
19

S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE