Aguire Ramos v. Perkins

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION with prejudice - The court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c);Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). File is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (TNC, Case Administrator) **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Victor Aguire Ramos, Prisoner ID: 422243)

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Mar 07, 2025

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7
8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
VICTOR MANUEL AGUIRE
RAMOS, also known as Victor Ramos,
Petitioner,

9
10
11
12

NO: 2:24-CV-00429-TOR
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v.
JEFFREY PERKINS,
Respondent.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s three-page “Response to Order for

15

Petitioner to Show Cause Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d),” and a seven-page

16

“Appendix,” which includes the Court’s prior Order. ECF No. 5. Petitioner, a

17

prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis. Respondent has not been served.

19

In his Response, Petitioner Victor Manuel Aguire Ramos asserts, “The date

20

on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 1

1

discovered through the exercise of due diligence is within the one-yers time limit

2

because the limitation period shall run from the latest July 1, 2024. This is the date

3

the factual predicate of the claims presented were discovered by the Petitioner and;

4

*the record in this case does not show the applicate was aware of the facts in totality

5

until on or about July 1, 2024. Through the Petitioner’s continued investigation

6

knowledge was obtained of the facts that are important. Prior to this date the

7

Petitioner did not “know” of the important facts. There for Section 2244(d)(1)(D).”

8

Id. at 1–2 (as written in original).

9

Petitioner’s invocation of the language of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D), without

10

any factual allegations either identifying the “factual predicate” allegedly discovered

11

on July 1, 2024, or any facts demonstrating that it could not have been discovered

12

earlier through the exercise of due diligence, is insufficient to delay the running of

13

the federal limitations period.

14

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

15

1.

16

U.S.C. § 2244(d).

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as time barred under 28

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 2

1

2.

The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal

2

from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which

3

to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A

4

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5

The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to

6

Petitioner, and CLOSE the file.

7

DATED March 7, 2025.

8
9
10

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 3