UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00293 Michael Fred Houston, Petitioner, V. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner Michael Ford Houston, proceeding pro se and forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a report (Doc. 24) recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice as time barred and a certificate of appealability be denied. Petitioner filed objections to the report. Doc. 26. The court re- views the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). In his objections, petitioner asserts for the first time that Mar- tinez v. Ryan,

(2012) and Trevino v. Thaler,

(2013) excuse his untimeliness and that the court can consider his ineffective of assistance of counsel claims. The decisions in Mar- tinez and Trevino, however, addressed exceptions to the procedural default rule of ineffective trial counsel claims and do not apply to the statute of limitations or equitable tolling. See Clark ». Director, TDCJ-CID,

, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)

! The Supreme Court extended Martinez to Texas in Trevino. Although Texas does not preclude appellants from raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal, the Court held that the rule in Martinez applies because “the Texas procedural system—as a matter of its structure, design, and opera- tion— does not offer most defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.” Trevino,

.

(citing Arthur v. Thomas,

(11th Cir. 2014)), adopted by

(E.D. Tex. May 4, 2018). “Martinez does not apply to section 2244(d)’s one-year limita- tions period.” Shank v. Vannoy,

, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2017) (order denying certificate of appealability) (citing Lombardo v. United States,

(7th Cir. 2017). As such, Martinez plays no part in determining whether the limitations period should be equitably tolled. See, e.g., Dickerson v. Davis,

, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 30, 2018) (“Nor can petitioner rely on the Martinez line of cases to excuse his untimeliness. This line of cases addresses equitable exceptions to a procedural default. The bar to review at issue in this case arises from petitioner’s failure to meet the federal limitations deadline under the AEDPA. Thus, the Martinez line of cases does not apply to the AEDPA’s statute of lim- itations and cannot be invoked to establish eligibility for equitable tolling.” (citation omitted)). For these reasons, the court overrules petitioner’s objections and accepts the report and recommendations of the magistrate judge. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of ap- pealability is denied sua sponte. Any outstanding motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on January 3, 2024. —_ faelok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-