Jose Ramon Pedraza v. Leslie -Cooley Dismukes, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JOSE RAMON PEDRAZA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 1:26CV95 ) LESLIE -COOLEY DISMUKES, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The petitioner, Jose Ramon Pedraza minimum of 285 months and a (“Pedraza”), a prisoner of the State of maximum of 354 months in prison.

North Carolina, seeks a writ of habeas Id., Ex. 2.1 Pedraza did not notice an corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. appeal after his conviction. Docket Docket Entries 1 and 2. The Entry 1, § 8. respondents filed a motion to dismiss, Docket Entry 5, and a supporting On December 10, 2024, over three brief, Docket Entry 6. Pedraza was years later, Pedraza filed a motion for notified of his right to file a response, appropriate relief (“MAR”) in Docket Entry 7; however, no response Alamance County Superior Court. was filed and the time to do so has Docket Entry 6, Ex. 3. In his MAR, expired. This matter is now prepared Pedraza alleged only that his sentence for a ruling. should be reduced due to mitigating factors and thereby asked the court to I. Background grant him a new resentencing hearing. Id. at 1-3. On January 27, On May 10, 2021, Pedraza pled guilty 2025, the trial court denied Pedraza’s in Alamance County Superior Court to MAR, noting that he failed to second-degree murder and accompany his MAR with “an possession of a firearm by a felon. affidavit or other documentary Docket Entry 6, Ex. 1. That same day, support for the allegations.” Id., Ex. 4 the trial court sentenced him to a at 1. The MAR court also determined Pedraza states in his Petition that the in his Memorandum supporting his date of judgment and sentencing was Petition and the Judgment and May 10, 2024. Docket Entry 1 at 1. But the Commitment itself. Docket Entry 6, Ex. judgment and sentencing occurred on 2; see Docket Entry 2 at 2-3.

May 10, 2021, as later noted by Pedraza that Pedraza failed to articulate a petition by placing it in the prison “valid basis in law or fact to support mailing system. Docket Entry 1 at 14. his Motion.” Id. at 2. The court then denied the MAR without an II. Ground for Relief evidentiary hearing. Id. In his only ground for relief, Pedraza On February 25, 2025, Pedraza filed a contends that his trial counsel motion to reconsider and motion to provided ineffective assistance amend his prior MAR. Id., Ex. 5. In because he failed to file a notice of addition to his motion to amend, he appeal upon his request. Docket Entry attached an affidavit describing his 1, Ground One; Docket Entry 2. As set experience post-sentencing and his forth below, this ground is time- activities while in prison. Id. at 4-5. barred.

He also attached documentation showing his attendance at Alcoholics III. Discussion Anonymous, a certificate of completion of an English as a Second The respondents request dismissal, Language class, and proof of his arguing that the petition was filed attendance at religious services, all beyond the one-year limitation period while in prison. Id. at 7-9. On March imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

27, 2025, the MAR court denied Docket Entry 6.

Pedraza’s motion to reconsider and motion to amend because he again The Antiterrorism and Effective failed to articulate a “valid basis in law Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) or fact to support his Motion.” Id., Ex. imposes a one-year statute of at 1. limitations on state prisoners seeking habeas corpus review in federal court.

On January 12, 2026, Pedraza filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute joint petition for writ of habeas corpus begins to run, as applicable here, from and for writ of certiorari with the the latest of a series of dates, North Carolina Supreme Court. Id., including: “(A) the date on which the Ex. 7. In his joint petitions, Pedraza [petitioner’s] judgment [of claimed—for the first time—that his conviction] became final by the trial attorney was ineffective because conclusion of direct review or the she failed to “file a notice of appeal expiration of the time for seeking such requested by him.” Id. at 3. On review[.]” See also Green v. Johnson, January 13, 2026, by two separate orders, the North Carolina Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari. Id., Exs.

8-9. On January 19, 2026, Pedraza filed the instant federal habeas 515 F.3d 290, 303-04 (4th Cir. 2008) of 2026. Docket Entry 1 at 14. It is (citing the statute).2 more than three and a half years late. i. Pedraza’s Sole Ground Is Time- Pedraza did make certain state Barred by Years. collateral filings, which generally toll the federal habeas deadline for “the Pedraza contends that he received entire period of state post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel proceedings, from initial filing to final because his trial attorney failed to file disposition by the highest state court a notice of appeal upon his request. (whether decision on the merits, Docket Entry 1, Ground One; Docket denial of certiorari, or expiration of Entry 2. Under Subparagraph (A), the period of time to seek further Pedraza’s one-year limitation period appellate review).” Taylor v. Lee, 186 began on “the date on which the F.3d 557, 561 (4th Cir. 1999); see also judgment became final by the Agnew v. Langley, No. 1:05CV00070, conclusion of direct review or the 2005 WL 1869232, at *2 (M.D.N.C. expiration of the time for seeking such Aug. 4, 2005) (“[T]he [statutory] review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). tolling does not include the time to file a certiorari petition to the United Here, Pedraza did not pursue a direct States Supreme Court from denial of appeal of his conviction with the state post-conviction relief.”). Yet, North Carolina Court of Appeals. Pedraza did not make any collateral Pedraza’s judgment thus became final filings in the state courts until on May 24, 2021, which was fourteen December 10, 2024, over two years days after his guilty plea on May 10, after the expiration of his one-year 2021. Docket Entry 6, Exs. 1-2. See 28 deadline, when he filed a MAR in U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (providing that Alamance County Superior Court. a conviction is final “the date on which Docket Entry 6, Ex. 3. State filings the judgment became final by the after this limitations period passes do conclusion of direct review or the not restart the filing period. See expiration of the time for seeking such Minter v. Beck, 230 F.3d 663, 665 review”); see also N.C. R. App. P. 4(a) (4th Cir. 2000). Pedraza’s sole ground (10 days to serve notice of appeal, for relief is thus time-barred and amended effective October 18, 2001 should be dismissed. to allow 14 days). Therefore, Pedraza’s one-year period of limitation under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) commenced in late May of 2021 and expired 365 days later, in late May of 2022. Pedraza dated and filed his petition in January The record does not reveal any and Benders has not invoked these meaningful basis for addressing subparagraphs. subparagraphs (B) or (C) of § 2244(d)(1) Pedraza’s objection to the contrary is ruling, a certificate of appealability not persuasive. In Section 18 of his not issue. pre-printed habeas form, which asks why the statute of limitations does not bar his petition, Pedraza states that SALLY his federal habeas petition is timely ona Gibs¢ McFadden because “[t]his petition is currently United States Magistrate Judge timely pending the North Carolina .

Supreme Court’s last action in this April 17, 2026 case decided on January 13, 2026.” Durham, NC Docket Entry 1, § 18. Nevertheless, Pedraza filed all of his post-conviction motions after the expiration of the one-year limitation period. His petition is time-barred.

IV.Conclusion Pedraza’s petition is time-barred.

Neither a hearing, nor discovery, nor the appointment of counsel are warranted.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the respondents’ motion to dismiss, Docket Entry 5, be GRANTED, that the petition, Docket Entry 1, be DISMISSED, that Judgment be entered dismissing this action, and that, there being no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction nor a debatable procedural Pedraza does not request (or appear to be entitled to) equitable tolling, nor does he assert actual innocence.