Rosales-Martinez v. Ludwick
| Decision Date | 29 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. C13-4044-LTS,C13-4044-LTS |
| Parties | SANTOS ROSALES-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. NICK LUDWICK, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that petitioner Santos Rosales-Martinez' petition (Doc. No. 1) for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied with prejudice. Both parties have filed objections (Doc. Nos. 53, 54).
A district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R under the following standards:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
Any portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made must be reviewed under at least a "clearly erroneous" standard. See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[a] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.
Judge Williams set out the procedural history and relevant facts in his R&R. See Doc. No. 49 at 2-11. The parties do not challenge Judge Williams' factual findings. Accordingly, I will repeat that information only to the extent necessary to address the relevant issues.
Rosales-Martinez is an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary. In 2002, an Iowa state court jury found him guilty of sexually abusing the young daughter of his (then)girlfriend/wife.1 Rosales-Martinez appealed his conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which affirmed. State v. Rosales-Martinez, 666 N.W.2d 621 (Table), 2003 WL 21229134 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003). On April 27, 2004, he filed a pro se application for postconviction relief (PCR). On December 10, 2010, the PCR court denied relief on all grounds. The Iowa Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed that denial. Specifically, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that Rosales-Martinez's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge alleged prosecutorial misconduct or for stipulating to protective order regarding the testimony of the victim. See Rosales-Martinez v. State, 810 N.W.2d 26 (Table), 2011 WL 6740152 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
The Iowa Supreme Court denied further review on February 14, 2012, and procedendo issued on February 21, 2012. Rosales-Martinez then filed a second PCR petition on August 23, 2012, which was denied on January 14, 2013. Rosales-Martinez mailed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition on May 10, 2013, and it was filed on May 13, 2013. See Docket No. 1. The respondent filed motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 12, 25), arguing that Rosales-Martinez's claims were procedurally and time barred. The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, Senior Judge, denied the motions to dismiss, stating that an evidentiary hearing should be conducted on the issue of whether the statute of limitations had been equitably tolled. Doc. No. 30. Judge O'Brien ordered that the merits of the case be briefed contemporaneously with the tolling issue. Id., at 16. In his merits brief, the respondent waived the statute of limitation issue, stating:
Respondent reasserts that this petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Yet, in light of the court's earlier order rejecting Respondent's motion to dismiss and ordering briefing on the merits, judicial economy would be best served by denying the petition on the merits and foregoing a hearing.
Doc. No. 42 at 38. Accordingly, Judge Williams addressed the merits of the parties' arguments, decided that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted and recommended dismissal of the petition.
Judge Williams set out the correct standards regarding Section 2254 habeas relief. In short, "[t]he writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 91 (2011). "As amended by [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996] AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 sets several limits on the power of a federal court to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that a federal court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. A federal court's review of a state court decision under § 2254 is deferential. Lomholt v. Iowa, 327 F.3d 748, 751 (8th Cir. 2003). A state court decision on the merits should not be overturned unless it:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). Considering the merits of habeas claims, the Eighth Circuit has stated that:
The "contrary to" clause and "unreasonable application" clause of § 2254(d)(1) have "independent meaning." See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The "contrary to" clause "suggests that the state court's decision must be substantially different from the relevant precedent of Court." Id. (). An "unreasonable application" of Supreme Court precedent occurs when a state court correctly identifies the governing legal standard but either unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular case or unreasonably extends or refuses to extend the legal standard to a new context. See id. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In determining whether the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent, our inquiry is an objective one. See id. at 409-10, 120 S.Ct. 1495
Munt v. Grandlienard, 829 F.3d 610, 614 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 821 (2017).
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) prohibits a grant of habeas relief on behalf of a person in state custody unless that person has "exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State."
"The exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b) ensures that the state courts have the opportunity fully to consider federal-law challenges to a state custodial judgment before the lower federal courts may entertain a collateral attack upon that judgment." Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 178-79, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001). The requirement prevents a federal court from granting a habeas petition based on a constitutional violation that could be redressed adequately by pursuing an avenue of state relief "still open to the habeas applicant at the time he files his application in federal court." Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 516, 92 S.Ct. 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972) (citing Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)).
Grass v. Reitz, 643 F.3d 579, 584 (8th Cir. 2011). Under Iowa's system, a petitioner must first file a PCR petition in the Iowa District Court. If his challenge is denied he must:
appeal to the supreme court. Iowa R.App. P. 6.1(1) (2007); see Effler, 769 N.W.2d at 883. The supreme court may then choose to transfer any case (except a case in which state law grants that court exclusive jurisdiction) to the court of appeals. Iowa Code §§ 602.4102(2), 5103(3); Iowa R.App. P. 6.401(1) (2007); see Effler, 769 N.W.2d at 883. "Once a transfer has been made, the supreme court no longer has jurisdiction of the matter, unless a party seeks further review of the court of appeals decision." Effler, 769 N.W.2d at 883; see Iowa Code § 602.4102(2). The supreme court regainsjurisdiction only if it grants an application for further review. Effler, 769 N.W.2d at 883; Iowa Code § 602.4102(2), (4); see Iowa R.App. P. 6.402 (2007). Nothing in Iowa law indicates that an application for further review in the supreme court is an extraordinary measure outside of the state's established appellate review process. Cf. Akins v. Kenney, 410 F.3d 451, 454 (8th Cir. 2005) (); Dixon, 263 F.3d at 779 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial