Jose Torres, Jr. v. Fidencio Guzman

Summary

The Central District of California ordered Jose Torres, Jr. to show cause why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely under AEDPA. The court concluded that the limitations period appeared to have expired in 2002 and that the petitioner’s later state post-conviction proceedings and newly discovered-evidence theory did not appear to render the claims timely. The court also denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Based on the information then available, the court determined that Torres's federal habeas claims appeared barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations and ordered him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed.
2. The request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice because Torres had no right to appointed counsel in this civil habeas action and had not shown that counsel was necessary at that stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal habeas petition appeared barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
2. Whether the 2004 state post-conviction proceedings statutorily tolled the federal limitations period after that period had already expired.
3. Whether the alleged 2012 article and related evidence could trigger a later limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D).
4. Whether Torres should receive appointed counsel in the non-capital habeas proceeding.

Disposition

other