United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
JORGE L. PORTALATIN, Petitioner,
WARDEN SCI CAMPHILL, et al., Respondents.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
Portalatin (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner at the
State Correctional Institution in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
Petitioner filed a pro se application seeking relief through
a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice (“Judge Rice”),
finding that Petitioner's claims were untimely and not
subject to equitable tolling, recommended that the Habeas
Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed
objections. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
overrule Petitioner's objections and deny the Habeas
Petition as untimely.
11, 2007, before the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton
County, Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of endangering
the welfare of children and one count of aggravated indecent
assault on a person under the age of 13. Report &
Recommendation at 1, ECF No. 3 [hereinafter R&R]. Several
months later, the court sentenced Petitioner to 10 to 24
years of imprisonment. Id. Petitioner appealed to
the Pennsylvania Superior Court, but later discontinued this
then filed a petition for collateral relief under
Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”). Id. On September 24, 2009, the
PCRA court denied the petition, id., and the Superior Court
affirmed, Id. at 1-2.
28, 2012, Petitioner filed a second PCRA petition.
Id. at 2. This petition was also dismissed, and the
dismissal was again affirmed by the Superior Court.
Id. On February 10, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied Petitioner's request for allocatur.
filed the instant Habeas Petition on February 26, 2014.
Id. Judge Rice issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) on June 18, 2014. ECF No. 3. On July
8, 2014, the Court, believing that Petitioner was not
objecting to the R&R, approved and adopted the R&R
and dismissed the Habeas Petitioner. ECF No. 5. Shortly
thereafter, however, the Court received Petitioner's
Objections, ECF No. 4, and vacated its Order dismissing the
Petitioner, ECF No. 6. The Habeas Petition is now again ripe
Court may refer an application for a writ of habeas corpus to
a U.S. Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A prisoner may object to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof.
See § 636(b)(1); E.D. Pa. R. Civ. P.
72.1(IV)(b). The Court must then “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” § 636(b)(1). The Court does not review
general objections. See Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d
193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We have provided that §
636(b)(1) requires district courts to review such objections
de novo unless the objection is not timely or not
specific.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
habeas review, the Court must determine whether the state
court's adjudication of the claims raised was (1)
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law, or (2) based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Habeas Petition asserts the following grounds for relief: (1)
his interpreter was never sworn in or examined by the court
as to the interpreter's qualifications; (2) the
information failed to include sufficiently specific facts;
(3) the sentencing court failed to explain which of two
identical counts it withdrew; (4) Petitioner was denied fair
notice of the charges and protection from double jeopardy due
to these identical counts; (5) Petitioner was never read his
Miranda rights; (6) there was no interpreter at the
sentencing hearing; (7) another individual, who Petitioner
seems to believe may have been the actual perpetrator, failed
a polygraph test regarding sexual misconduct with children;
(8) the sentencing judge expressed bias toward Petitioner;
(9) there was a lack of probable cause to arrest Petitioner
because he had passed his polygraph test; (10)
Petitioner's sentencing occurred too many days after his
guilty plea; (11) Petitioner was manipulated due to his
inability to understand English; and (12) the criminal
information was never signed by an attorney for the
Commonwealth. ECF No. 1. Judge Rice recommended that all of
these claims be denied as untimely.
Statute of Limitations
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) provides a strict one-year deadline for
the filing of petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This