Eric C. Martinez v. Ricky Dixon

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00164
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION ERIC C. MARTINEZ,

Petitioner, v. Case No.: 1:24cv164-MW/HTC

RICKY DIXON,

Respondent. _________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 24. None of Petitioner’s objections warrant further relief or comment, except as follows. Petitioner asserts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning Petitioner’s decision to not testify at trial is erroneous inasmuch as the state court relied on trial counsel’s representations that the had advised his client of his right to testify. ECF No. 24. As a basis to assert error, Petitioner relies upon a federal case involving a section 2255 habeas petition, which involves different standards for collaterally challenging federal convictions. See Gallego v. United States, 174 F.3d 1196, 1197–98 (11th Cir. 1999). Notwithstanding Petitioner’s misplaced reliance on Gallego, he has not demonstrated a clearly established federal-law error or unreasonable determination of fact on the part of the state court, based solely on the state court record, and is thus not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his habeas claims before this

Court. See Landers v. Warden, Atty. Gen. of Ala., 776 F.3d 1288, 1295 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, Petitioner now apparently seeks to argue additional grounds for

habeas relief, including new errors, such as the sufficiency of the charging document, and his alleged “actual innocence.” However, Petitioner cannot amend his habeas petition through filing objections to the report and recommendation. See Floyd v. Johnson, 2014 WL 3545032, at *10 (S.D. Ga. July 15, 2014) (noting when

petitioner must seek leave to amend § 2254 petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 18, is accepted and adopted, over the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the conviction in State v.

Martinez, Case No. 21-2015-CF-145-A, in the First Judicial Circuit, in and for Gilchrist County, Florida, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED as to Grounds One, Three, and Four, and DENIED as to Ground Two.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on April 13, 2026.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ United States District Judge