Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Portalatin v. Camphill

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 5, 2017

WARDEN SCI CAMPHILL, et al., Respondents.


          EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

         Jorge 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On June 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 appeal. Id.

         Petitioner 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.

         On June 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. Id.

         Petitioner 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 for disposition.


         The 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).

         On 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).


         The 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.

         A. Statute of Limitations

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.