Diaz v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 22

ORDER: The court determines that the 20 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as those of the court. The court, therefore, overrules Petitioner's objections to the Report. Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. The court denies a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/28/2016) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YONI RENEA DIAZ, #1314510,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-4104-L

ORDER
Before the court is Petitioner Yoni Renea Diaz’s (“Petitioner” or “Diaz”) pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed November 18, 2014. The case was
referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on April 1, 2016,
recommending that the court dismiss the petition with prejudice as barred by the one-year
limitations period. Petitioner filed objections to the Report on April 25, 2016. Diaz asserts that
he received the Report on April 7, 2016, and the postmark indicates that the objections were mailed
April 20, 2016. Accordingly, the court will deem the objections as timely filed. Petitioner objects
to the application of the one-year limitations period and contends that good cause exists for
equitable tolling because he is a foreign national with little knowledge of the law and English.
Having reviewed the file and record in this case and having made a de novo review of those
portions of the Report to which Petitioner objected, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as those of the court. The court,

Order – Page 1

therefore, overrules Petitioner’s objections to the Report. Accordingly, the court dismisses the
petition with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its
finding that Petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would
find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”
and “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). *
In the event Petitioner will file a notice of appeal, the court notes that Petitioner will need
to pay the appellate filing fee of $505 or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is so ordered this 28th day of April, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

*
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009,
reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability
when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may
direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a
certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may
seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion
to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order
entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a
certificate of appealability.

Order – Page 2