Joaquin v. Smith
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-09372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Joaquin v. Smith, Magistrate Judge Cave granted Joaquin 45 more days to explain why his petition should not be denied as untimely.
Miguel E. Joaquin, whose request for more time to address the possible filing deadline was granted; the respondent was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
Miguel E. Joaquin asked for 45 additional days to file a declaration explaining why his petition should not be denied as filed too late. The court’s earlier order required this explanation because the petition appeared potentially barred by the one-year filing deadline for certain habeas petitions.
The court granted the extension and set March 4, 2022, as the new deadline. Joaquin was told to list the dates of his state postconviction motions, decisions, appeals, and notice of those decisions. He was also told to describe any diligent effort to pursue his rights and any extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave stated that the court would review a timely declaration and, if appropriate, require the respondent to answer. No answer was required at that time. If Joaquin failed to comply without good cause, the court would recommend denying the petition as time-barred.
The detailed version
- Joaquin v. Smith · No. 1:21-cv-09372
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 19, 2022
Background
Miguel E. Joaquin filed a petition that the court’s November 19, 2021 order indicated might be barred by the applicable filing deadline. The court required Joaquin to show why the petition should not be denied as time-barred.
Request and ruling
Joaquin requested a 45-day extension to file a declaration addressing the timeliness issue. The court granted that request and directed him to file the declaration by March 4, 2022.
The declaration was to list the dates when Joaquin filed state postconviction motions challenging his conviction, when those motions were decided, when he filed appeals or applications for permission to appeal, when those matters were decided, and when he received notice of the relevant state-court decisions. The court also directed him to allege facts showing that he had pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing the petition on time. The court cited the statutory rule concerning tolling during properly filed state postconviction proceedings and the standard for equitable tolling of the one-year limitation period for qualifying habeas petitions.
Next steps and disposition
The order stated that, if Joaquin timely filed the declaration and it was sufficient, the court would review it and could order the respondent to answer. No answer was required at that time. If Joaquin did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the court would recommend that the petition be denied as time-barred. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Joaquin and note service on the docket.
The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. It granted Joaquin’s request for an extension; it did not decide whether the petition was ultimately time-barred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.