Aragon v. Perez
1:16-cv-06982
E.D.N.YMay 16, 2023Background
- Petitioner Rodolfo Aragon filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 13, 2016, challenging his 2010 Queens County conviction for second-degree burglary.
- In January 2017 the Court found the petition deficient and potentially time-barred under AEDPA, ordered Aragon to show cause or file an amended petition, and gave a 30-day deadline (later extended).
- Aragon submitted a February 27, 2017 letter seeking permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice; the Court warned withdrawal could affect future petitions and directed him either to confirm withdrawal or show cause by April 10, 2017.
- Aragon did not respond by the deadline; the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice on April 26, 2017, and the Clerk entered judgment on April 28, 2017.
- Over five years later (December 19, 2022) Aragon filed an objection asserting a continuing interest in prosecution and blaming failure to serve on "changing of adverse parties," arguing Respondent would not be prejudiced.
- The Court held Aragon’s objection untimely under the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations, denied relief, declined to grant a certificate of appealability, and denied in forma pauperis status for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA | Aragon says he still wants to prosecute; failed service due to "changing adverse parties" and no prejudice to Respondent | Petition was not timely pursued; Aragon failed to show cause or timely amend as ordered | Dismissal upheld as untimely; petitioner did not meet AEDPA deadline or justify tolling |
| Effect of withdrawal request | Aragon sought to withdraw petition without prejudice (Feb 2017) | Court warned withdrawal could affect future petitions and required confirmation or show cause | Court dismissed after no timely response; withdrawal request did not save the petition |
| Certificate of appealability and IFP for appeal | Implied desire to appeal | No substantial showing of constitutional violation; appeal not in good faith | COA denied; in forma pauperis denied for appeal (appeal would not be taken in good faith) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucidore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for showing denial of constitutional right when assessing certificate of appealability)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for in forma pauperis appeals)