Rodriguez v. Burke

Background

Andres Rodriguez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Robyn Tarnofsky, who issued a Report and Recommendation on February 7, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied as untimely.

The Report and Recommendation stated that objections were due by February 21, 2025, and warned that failing to object within 14 days would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Rodriguez filed no objections and did not request more time. On March 6, 2025, the district court adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the petition as untimely. Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal on March 21, 2025.

Certificate of Appealability

After denying the petition, the court considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for a habeas petitioner to appeal in this context. A certificate may issue only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The standard also asks whether reasonable judges could debate the result or whether the issues deserve further review.

Ruling

The court denied Rodriguez a certificate of appealability for all claims in the petition. It held that Rodriguez’s failure to timely object to the Report and Recommendation independently waived appellate review. The court also stated that, even without that waiver, the petition was filed at least 69 days after the statute of limitations expired. Rodriguez had made no argument for extending the limitations period on equitable grounds, and the court found no such exception apparent from the petition. The court concluded that Rodriguez had not made the required substantial showing and that reasonable judges could not debate the limitations calculation.