UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JUAN A. GONZALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-440 WL

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Juan A. Gonzales, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging

his 2002 drug conviction in Lake County, Indiana. (DE 1.) The court is obligated to review the

petition and dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . .” RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES.

According to the petition, Gonzales was convicted by a jury of dealing in cocaine and on

November 21, 2002, was sentenced to 30 years in prison. (DE 1 at 1.) He later pursued a belated

direct appeal, but his appeal was denied on June 10, 2009. (Id. at 2.) He did not seek review in

the Indiana Supreme Court. (Id.) In December 2010, Gonzales filed a state petition for postconviction relief. (Id. at 3.) Following an evidentiary hearing, his petition was denied. (Id.) The

Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on June 13, 2013. (Id. at

5.) He attempted to file a petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, but his petition was

returned to him unfiled due to numerous deficiencies. See Gonzales v. Indiana, No. 45A03-1210-

PC-421 (Ind. order dated July 19, 2013.) He later sought leave to file a belated petition to

transfer, but his request was denied. Id. (order dated Feb. 19, 2014). 

case 3:14-cv-00440-WCL document 4 filed 03/11/14 page 1 of 4
On March 6, 2014, Gonzales tendered his federal petition to prison officials for mailing.

(DE 1 at 11.) He raises the following claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay

testimony; (2) his Fourth Amendment rights were violated in connection with an illegal search;

and (3) his sentence was excessive. (DE 1 at 5-7.)

Gonzales’s petition is governed by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). Under

AEDPA, habeas petitions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, set forth as follows:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of—

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

2

case 3:14-cv-00440-WCL document 4 filed 03/11/14 page 2 of 4
Upon review, Gonzales’s claims do not implicate newly discovered evidence or a newly

recognized constitutional right, nor does he claim that a state-created impediment prevented him

from filing his federal petition on time. Accordingly, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A) apply. The Indiana Court of Appeals denied his direct appeal in June 2009, and he

did not seek further review. Thus, his conviction became final when the time for seeking review

in the Indiana Supreme Court expired in July 2009. See IND. APP. R. 57(C)(1) (petition to transfer

to Indiana Supreme Court must be filed within 30 days of appellate court judgment); Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 655-56 (2012) (when a habeas petitioner does not complete all levels of

state review, his conviction becomes final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the

time for seeking further review expires). 

Gonzales had one year from that date, or until July 2010, to file a timely federal petition,

absent any period of tolling. He did not do so, and instead waited until December 2010 to file a

state post-conviction petition. By the time he filed his state petition, the federal deadline had

already expired. The state court’s subsequent denial of post-conviction relief did not “restart” the

federal clock, nor did it “open a new window for federal collateral review.” De Jesus v. Acevedo,

567 F.3d 941, 943 (7th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the petition was filed beyond the one-year

deadline.1 When asked to explain why his petition is timely, Gonzales states: “The year period of

limitation have not passed since the petitioner have exhausted every remedy in the Court of the

State of Indiana, District Court, Appeals Court and Supreme Court mean while the petitioner is

incarcerated.” (See DE 1 at 10.) Although it is not entirely clear, he appears to believe the

1 As noted above, the petitioner failed to perfect a petition to transfer with the Indiana Supreme Court after

the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief in June 2013. An additional nine months

elapsed between June 2013 and March 2014, when he filed his federal petition. He would not be entitled to tolling during

this period since he did not have a properly filed state collateral attack pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

3

case 3:14-cv-00440-WCL document 4 filed 03/11/14 page 3 of 4
petition is timely because it was filed within one year of the date the post-conviction proceedings

came to a conclusion. As outlined above, however, the one-year deadline ran from the date his

conviction became final in 2009. Based on the above, the petition must be dismissed.

Pursuant to RULE 11 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES, the court must

either issue or deny a certificate of appealability in all cases where it enters a final order adverse

to the petitioner. To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right by establishing “that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quote marks and citation

omitted). As is fully explained above, the petition was not timely filed. Nothing before the court

suggests that jurists of reason could debate the correctness of this procedural ruling or find a

reason to encourage Gonzales to proceed further. Accordingly, the court declines to issue him a

certificate of appealability.

For these reasons, the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to

RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES, and the petitioner is DENIED a

certificate of appealability. The petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE

3) is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 11, 2014 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

4

case 3:14-cv-00440-WCL document 4 filed 03/11/14 page 4 of 4