Quinones v. Lee

Background

Ricardo Quinones, who was incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2010 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Sullivan County. He paid the $5 filing fee. The case had previously been dismissed without prejudice because he did not comply with an order requiring him either to pay the filing fee or to apply for permission to proceed without paying it. After Quinones paid the fee, the earlier dismissal and civil judgment were vacated on June 10, 2022, and the case was reopened.

Timeliness issue

A petition under § 2254 generally must be filed within one year of the latest of several specified events, including when the conviction becomes final. The court stated that Quinones alleged he was convicted on February 9, 2010, and did not appeal. It therefore calculated that the conviction became final on March 11, 2010, when the time to file a notice of appeal expired.

Under the prison-mailbox rule, the court treated the petition as filed on June 1, 2020, when Quinones placed it in the prison mail collection box. Quinones alleged that he filed a state post-conviction motion on July 7, 2018. The court explained that state post-conviction proceedings can pause the federal one-year limitations period only when they are pending before that period expires; a motion filed afterward does not restart the period. The court therefore stated that Quinones’s state proceedings did not appear to pause the limitations period and that the petition might be time-barred.

Order

The court directed Quinones to file a declaration within 60 days of the order explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. The declaration must list the dates of his state post-conviction applications and motions, the state-court decisions, any appeals or requests for permission to appeal, the decisions on those matters, and when he received notice of those decisions. He may also present facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing, which are relevant to equitable tolling—the possible extension of a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances.

The court did not dismiss the petition at this stage. It stated that, if Quinones timely files an adequate declaration, the court will review it and, if appropriate, order William Lee to respond. If Quinones does not comply, cannot show good cause for noncompliance, or does not establish that the petition was timely, the court will deny the petition as time-barred. No response from Lee was required at that time. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Quinones had not then made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee was therefore denied for purposes of an appeal.