Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosales-Martinez v. Ludwick

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

June 25, 2013

NICK LUDWICK, Warden Respondent.


DONALD E. O'BRIEN, District Judge.


Currently before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Santos Rosales-Martinez [hereinafter Mr. Rosales-Martinez]. Mr. Rosales-Martinez is currently incarcerated at the Iowa State Penitentiary pursuant to a conviction for Second Degree Sexual Abuse. Docket No. 1, p. 1; See also State v. Rosales-Martinez, 666 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003).

On May 13, 2013, Mr. Rosales-Martinez filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Southern District of Iowa. Docket No. 1. The filing fee for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is $5, which Mr. Rosales-Martinez paid (28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)). Mr. Rosales-Martinez also included an application for appointment of counsel.

On May 14, 2013, Senior District Court Judge Harold D. Vietor entered an Order transferring this case to the Northern District of Iowa. See Docket No. 2. This Court received the case the next day, on May 15, 2013.


A. Initial Review Standard

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases provides that the court shall conduct an initial review of the petition for habeas corpus and summarily dismiss it, order a response, or "take such action as the judge deems appropriate." See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court may summarily dismiss an application without ordering a response if it plainly appears from the face of the application and its exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Small v. Endicott , 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993) (explaining that "Rule 4 enables the district court to dismiss a petition summarily, without reviewing the record at all, if it determines that the petition and any attached exhibits either fail to state a claim or are factually frivolous, " and "[e]ven if the petition clears those hurdles, the district court still need not independently review the record so long as the petitioner does not dispute that the facts reported in the state court opinions faithfully and accurately reflect the record." (citing Davis v. Franzen , 671 F.2d 1056, 1057 (7th Cir. 1982))); see also Barnett v. Roper , 541 F.3d 804, 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court may consider sua sponte the timeliness of a state prisoner's habeas petition (citing Day v. McDonough , 547 U.S. 188, 209 (2006))).

B. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

A petitioner has one year from the time a state court judgment becomes final to apply for a federal writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). A judgment is final, for these purposes, at the conclusion of all direct criminal appeals in the state system followed by either (1) the denial of certiorari or (2) the expiration of the time allotted for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Smith v. Bowersox , 159 F.3d 345, 348 (8th Cir. 1998). A petitioner has ninety days from the date of entry of judgment in a state court of last resort to petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Sup.Ct. R. 13. Mr. Rosales-Martinez filed an application for post-conviction relief, which was litigated to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The Iowa Court of Appeals denied his Application on on December 11, 2011. See Rosales-Martinez v. State , 810 N.W.2d 26 (Table) (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). The Iowa Supreme Court denied further review on February 14, 2012, and procedendo issued on February 21, 2012. Thus, for the Court's purposes, the clock to file the Habeas Petition began running on February 21, 2012. Mr. Rosales-Martinez had one year (per 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)) and ninety days (per the Supreme Court Rule) to file his Habeas Petition. Thus, according to the Court's calculations, he had until, approximately, May 21, 2013. Mr. Rosales-Martinez mailed his Petition on May 10, 2013, and it was filed on May 13, 2013. For purposes of Initial Review, it appears that Mr. Rosales-Martinez filed his application within the allotted time period.[1]

C. Other Matters

As discussed above, in this type of case, the Court is to conduct an initial review and may dismiss the petition if it fails on its face. It appears to the Court that Mr. Rosales-Martinez's Petition has met the procedural requirements and should be allowed to proceed past the initial review stage.[2]


Mr. Rosales-Martinez has requested that counsel be appointed in this case. 28 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.