Avilez v. Director of TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 28 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Elpidio B Avilez. ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (docket entry #28) is DENIED. All motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 3/29/2012. (kls, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ELPIDIO B. AVILEZ, #1011021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:04cv451
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment. A review of the history of this case reveals
that, on June 21, 2005, this case was dismissed as time-barred. On December 21, 2007, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability. On April 7,
2011, this Court denied Petitioner’s first motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).
In the instant motion (docket entry #28), Petitioner again asks that the Court grant relief
from judgment. Petitioner’s § 2254 petition was denied because it was not timely filed. He now
argues that the judgment is void, relying on the holding of Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113,
129 S. Ct. 681, 172 L. Ed.2d 475 (2009). In Jimenez, the Court held that direct review is not
concluded until the availability of a direct appeal is exhausted. Id. 129 S. Ct. at 686. More
specifically, when determining time limitations, the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review must reflect the
conclusion of an out-of-time direct appeal or the expiration of the time for seeking review of that
appeal. Id. at 686-87. Essentially, Jimenez stands for the proposition that when a petitioner is
granted an out-of-time appeal, the pendency of his direct appeal is restored – thus extending the
limitations period. However, Jimenez was decided after Petitioner’s case had been dismissed as
time-barred, and he has not shown, nor has this Court found, that Jimenez is to be applied
retroactively. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that the new method of calculating
the limitations period announced in Jimenez is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that
warrants relief under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2011).
It is accordingly
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment (docket entry #28) is
DENIED. All motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED.
SIGNED this the 29th day of March, 2012.
RICHARD A. SCHELL
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?