Figueroa v. Director, TDCJ-CID

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: December 7, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

PEDRO A. FIGUEROA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 3:21-cv-1033-X-BH § DIRECTOR, TEXAS § DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL § JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL § INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 25]. Petitioner Pedro A. Figueroa, an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on May 6, 2021.1 The Magistrate Judge concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)’s one-year statute of limitations barred Figueroa’s habeas action, adding that statutory tolling is inapplicable and equitable tolling is unwarranted.2 And “[l]iberally construing [Figueroa’s] allegations as a claim of actual innocence,” the Magistrate Judge also concluded that Figueroa

1 Doc. No. 3. 2 Doc. No. 25 at 3–5 (“Because the date [Figueroa’s] conviction became final is the latest date under § 2244(d), the one-year statute of limitations began to run from that date, August 27, 2015. [Figueroa] filed this habeas action almost six years later.”). failed to meet the “demanding standard” of an actual innocence claim, which “is seldom met.”3 Figueroa objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report, raising two arguments as

to why the statute of limitations should be tolled: (1) a lack of legal assistance in filing his petition and (2) his lack of “understanding the English language.”4 Figueroa’s arguments offer no response to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his habeas action is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Figueroa cites two cases in support of his objection, neither of which is binding on this Court and neither of which contradicts the Magistrate Judge’s report.5 Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Figueroa’s objection because he has not presented any legal reason to support tolling

the statute of limitations. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. No. 25]. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES Figueroa’s petition.

3 Id. at 6 (quoting Floyd v. Vannoy, 894 F.3d 143, 145–55 (5th Cir. 2018)). 4 Doc. No 26 at 1. 5 Id. (citing U.S. v. Bendolph, 409 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that an indigent defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel for a post-conviction § 2255 evidentiary hearing); U.S. v. Mejia, 600 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2010) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a detective to testify as to the content of the defendant’s incriminating statements given that the statements were made in Spanish and the detective translated them to English)). IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of December, 2022.

BRANTL AR UNITED SPATES DISTRICT JUDGE