NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0167n.06 No. 09-1408 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
JOA QU IN TORRE S , Pe tit ion e r-

Ap pe lla nt,
v. SUSAN DAVIS, Warden , Respondent-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE, GIBBONS , and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Joaquin Torres a ppeals the district c ourt’s dis mis sa l of

his pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. To rr e s c la ims the dis tr ic t court e rr e d whe n it conclude d that Torre s was not entitled to equitable tolling a nd it dism issed sua sponte his petition as time-bar

red. F or the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND On S eptember 7, 2004, Torre s pleade d g uilty to delivery of 1,000 g rams or more of coc aine
and po sse ssi on

wi th int e nt to de liv e r fi ft

y g ra ms or mor e of c oc a ine , in vio latio n o f M ic hig an s tate l aw , an d w a s s e n t e n c e d

t o c o n c u r r e n tt e r m s o f 1 5 t o 3 0 ye ar s an d

7 t o 2 0 ye ar s , r e s p e c t i v e l y. Torre s’s conviction bec ame final on September 7, 2005, and this date also starte d the clock running for the A ntiterrorism and Ef fec tive Death Penalty

Act (“ AEDPA”) one-year statute of limit ations to file a federa l habea s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)( A). Tor res did not appe alNo. 09-1408

Torre s v . D av is

- 2 - his convi c ti o n u n ti l A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 0 7 , w h e n h e f il e d a mo ti o n f

o r r e li e f f

r o m ju d g me n t in the Muskeg on County

Circuit Court. Proceedingpro se, Tor res’ s motion set forth three grounds for relief and also requested an evidentiar y hear ing. T he cour

t denied Torr es’s motion on all g rounds
on Au g us t 15 , 20 07
. To rr e s su bs e qu e ntl y so ug ht le ave to a pp e a l in the Mic hig an Su pr e me Court , which denie d his request on Nove mber 25, 2008. On J anuar

y 12, 2009, Torre s filed a pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orpus in the United States Di s t ri c t C o u r t fo r t h e W es t ernDi s t ri ct o f M i ch i gan u n d er 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4
. A m agi s t ra t e j u d ge issued a re port and re commendation (“ R & R”) to deny his petition as tim e-ba

rre d, concludingthat Torre s’s petition did not set forth a ny g rounds war

rantingequitable tolling of the AEDPA one -y ear statute of limitations. Torres filed objec tions to t he R & R, claiming that his difficulty with the Eng lish langua g e wa

rra nted the application of equitable tolling. The district court conducte d a de novo revie w of Torre s’s petition a nd considere d Torre s’s
rea sons for equitable tolling. Afte r dete rmining that T orre s was not e ntitled to equitable tolling, the district court dismissed the petition as time-barr ed. On Se pte mbe r 1 7, 20 09 , th is C ourt g ra nte d To rr e s a c e rt if

ic a te of a pp e a la bil ity ba se d o n h is timely notice of a

ppeal f iled in the district court. See Fe d. R. App. P. 22(b).

II. AN AL YSI S A. Legal F ram ework and Stand ard of Review AEDPA mandates that habe as petitions broug ht by p ri s o ners c halleng ing state-c ourt convictions must be filed within one y ear from “the date on which the judg ment beca me final by

the conclusion of di rec t review or the e x piration of the time for seekingsuch re view.” 28 U .S.C. §No. 09-1408

Torre s v . D av is

- 3 - 2244(d)( 1)(A) . This require ment is not jurisdictional; it is an affirmative de fense that the state c an raise in its answe r to a ha beas pe tition. Day v. McDo n ough , 547 U.S. 198, 205, 208 (2006). Howeve r, bec ause of

the consider ations that motivated AEDPA, district courts, while under no obligation to do so, are pe rmitted to raise the issue sua spon te. Id. at 208-09. F urthermor e, the Sup re me Cour t recen tl y

c on fi rm e d th is C ourt ’s po sit ion that th e AE DPAstatut e of lim itatio ns is “subjec t to equitable toll ing in appropr iate ca ses.” Holland v. Florida , --- U.S. --- ,130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010). “[T] he doctr ine of equitable tolling allows fede ral c ourts to toll a statute of limit ations when ‘a litig ant’s fa ilure to meet a leg ally -m an d at ed deadline una voidably arose from cir cumstance s beyond that litigant’s c ontrol.’” Ke e n a n v . B ag le y , 4 0 0 F.3d 417, 421 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Graham-Hum

phreys v . Mem

phis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc

. , 209 F.3d 552, 560- 61 (6th Cir. 2000)). “The party

seekingequitable tolling be ars the bur den of pr oving he is e ntitled to it.” Robertson v. Simpson , 624 F.3d 781, 784 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Equitable tolling should be invoked “ sparing ly ,” and a petitioner se ekingequitable toll ing must show both that he dilige ntly pursued his rig hts and that
some extraordinary circ umstance preve nted timely filing. Id. (c i t i n g Holland , 130 S. Ct . at 2562). Where the f

acts a re undisputed, we revie w a district c ourt’s decision on equitable tolling de
novo. Solomon v. United States , 467 F.3d 928, 932 ( 6th Cir. 2006). B. Discussion To rr e s a g re e s th a t if

e qu ita ble tol lin g do e s n ot a

pp ly , h is p e tit ion wa s unti me ly . Tor re s’ s ti me pe ri od fo r f ili nga fe de ra l ha

be a s p e tit ion

e xpir e d o n Se pte mbe r 7 , 20 06 and he did no t f ile his petition in the dist rict cour t until J anuar

y 12, 2009. Howeve r, Torre s contends that he doe s not needNo. 09-1408

Torre s v . D av is

- 4 - to sho w t h a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o e qu i t a b l e t o l l i n g a tt h i s s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . H e c l a i m s t h a th is petition was dismissed under Rule 4’s scr eening p rocedures a nd thus it shoul d not have be en dismiss ed bec ause he prese nted a pla us ible claim for equitable tolling that warra n t s fu rt her proce eding s. We find this arg ument unavailing
. Rul e 4 o f t

he Rul e s G ov e rnin g Se c tio n 2 25 4 Ca se s in the Un ite d St a te s D ist

ri c t Co ur ts pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p art : I f it plainly

appea rs from the f

ace o f t h e p et i t ion and any attache d exhibi ts that the petitioner is not entitle d to relief in the district c ourt, the judg e must dismis s the petition and direc t the cler k to notify the petit ioner. I f t he petiti on is not dism issed, the jud g e mus t or de r t he re sp on de nt t o f ile an a ns we r, mot ion , o r o the r r e sp on se within a fix ed time, or to take other a ction the judg e may order
. Rule 4, Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases. Torr es is corr ect that the ma g istrate judg e first que stioned t he timeliness of Torr es’s pe tition under Rule 4. The mag istrate judg e conc luded that Torr es’s pe tit i o nw a s u n t i m e l y , b u tt h e ni n f o r m e d T o r r e s i nt h e R

& R t h a tT o r r e s ’ s o p p o rtu n i t y

t o fi le objections constituted his notice and opportunity to be hea rd bef ore the district court on the issue of equitable tolling. T orre s conce des that he w as g iven notice a nd an opportunity

to be hea rd on the t i m e l i n e s s o f h i s p e t i t i o n a s r e qu i r e d b y Day v . McD onough , 5 47 U. S. at 21 0. To rr e s r e sp on de d to the ma g istrate jud g e ’s R & R, a rguin g that hi s d if

fi c ult y wi th the En g lis h la

ngua g e jus tif

ie d e qu ita ble tolling. The district c ourt consider ed Torr es’s claim for equitable tolling de novo and conclude d the circ umstances Tor

res a lleg ed did not justif

y equitable tolling. T hat the mag istrate judg e’s initial revie w of Tor

res’ s petition was conducte d under Rule 4 is t h u s i rr el evant to the dist rict cour t’s ult imate dis mis sa l be c a

us e To rr e s w a s g ive n a

n o pp or tun ity to p re sent hi s argum e nt f or e qu ita ble tol lin g and

the di st ri ct court

fu lly a dd re sse d h is c la im o n th e me ri ts. To rr e s w a s n ot r e qu ir e d toNo. 09-1408

Torre s v . D av is

- 5 - prove the propriety

of equitable tolling i n his initial petition to the di strict court. Howeve r, once the district court ra ised th e i s s u e s u a spont e and g ave T orre s notice and a n opportunity

to be hea

rd, Torre s bore the burden of proving equitable tolling w as wa rra nted. See R obertson , 624 F.3d at 784. Torre s has not car

ried his burde n in pr o v i n g equitable tolling is justified. Torr es cla imed be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt that the de lay in f ili nghis pe tit ion

wa s d ue to h is d if

fi c ult y wi th t he En g lis h lang uag e and that the fac ility wher e he was held for the past five y ear s did not provide assistance for non-Engli s h speake rs. He f urther e x plained that he r equeste d transfe rs to a fa cility with such
a ssi sta nc e , b ut t hat a ll h is r e qu e sts we re de nie d. W hen a pe tit ion e r’ s a lle g e d la c k o f E ng lis h pr of ic ie nc y “ ha s n ot p re ve nte d th e pe tit ion e r f ro m a c cess in g t he court s, the la c k o f p ro fi c ie nc y is insufficient to justify an equitable tolling of the s tatute of limit ations.” Cob as v . B ur ge ss , 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002). “An inabilit y to speak, write and/or understand E ng lish, in and of itself, does not automatica lly

g ive a pe titioner re asonable cause for f ailing to know a

bout the leg al require ments for filinghis claims.” Id. To rr e s a dmi ts that if

he de mon str a te d E ng lis h p ro fi c ie nc y su ff ic ie nt t o acc e ss t

he c ourt s during the AEDPA statute of limit ations time period, thi s would prec lude equitable tolling. But he contends that the r ecor d is silent as to any indication that he had such ab i l i t y , b ec ause he did not
a c c e ss t he c ourt s— e ith e r s tate or fede ral —unti l A ugus t 6, 20 07 , w he n h e fi le d a mot ion fo r p os tconviction relief in state court, almost a full y ear afte r his time limit for filing a fe d er al habea s petition had expired. Nonethele ss, Torre s has not e stablished that he could not timely file his habea s petition. Torre s ’s p ro se f ilings in the Michig an state c ourts set forth de tailed and leng thy leg al arguments. SeePe tit ion , D ist . Ct . D oc ke t N o. 1, Ap pe nd ix B . A lth ou g h Tor re s cla ims an in a

bil ityNo. 09-1408

Torre s v . D av is

- 6 - to acc ess the cour

ts until afte r the AED PA statute of limit ations had run, he does not expl ain how that inability transfor

med into the detailed and leng thy leg al ar g uments prese nted in the Michig an state cour t s y s t em . Torre s cannot succ eed in de monstrating e x traordina ry circ umstances without providing some justification for the discr epanc y betwee n his ability

at these two points in time. Cf. Cobas , 30 6 F .3 d a t 44 4 (r e je c tin g pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that langua g e dif fi c ult ie s pr oh ibi te d his tim e ly fi lin g wh e re he wr ote a

de ta ile d le tte r t o h is atto rn e y and fi le d tw o p os t- c on vic tio n mo tio ns in s tate court). T here fore , Torre s has fa iled t o m ee t his burden of justifying e quitable tolling. See Robertson , 624 F.3d at 784. Additionally , Torre s reque sts that we re mand his case for f urther pr ocee dings in the district
c ourt . H ow e ve r, a t or a l argume nt T or re s st a te d that he di d no t th ink a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ngis
n e c e s s a r y . T h at s ai d , n o p u rp o s e w o u l d b e s erv edb y

re m an d i n g th e c as e f

o r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs g iven that Torr es does not now a lleg e any additional fac ts that he int ends t o submit on remand. As
we hav e no ted, To rr e s w a s g ive n s uf fi c ie nt n oti c e and

an o pp or

tun ity to p re se nt a

ny and a ll arguments for e quitable tolling bef ore the district court dismissed his petition as t ime-bar red. See Day , 5 4 7 U
. S. a t 2 0 9
. B e c a u s e h e h a s f

a il e d to c ar

r y h is b u r d e n , o r e v e n a ll e g e th a t he ca n, the district court did not err

in dismi ssing his petition.

III . C ON CL USI ON For the above stated re asons, we AF F IRM the district court’s dismissal of Torr es’s pe tition.