United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MARK A. COCHRAN, Petitioner,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER
MATTER is before the Court under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings on the Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 For a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by Petitioner Mark A. Cochran. (Doc. 1).
The Court will dismiss the Petition as time-barred under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and for failure to state a
cognizable claim under either 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Cochran filed his § 2254 Petition on April 5, 2018.
(Doc. 1). In his Petition, he states that he is challenging
his conviction for kidnapping and aggravated assault on a
peace officer in State of New Mexico, County of McKinley,
Eleventh Judicial District cause no. D-1113-CR-2010-214.
(Doc. 1 at 1, ¶¶ 1-5). Cochran pled guilty and was
sentenced in cause no. D-1113-CR-2010-214 on July 25, 2011.
Judgment was entered on the conviction and sentence on August
1, 2011. (Doc. 1 at 1, ¶ 2). The Petition indicates that
Cochran did not file a direct appeal from the judgment on his
conviction and sentence. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 11). The only
post-judgment proceedings he has submitted are a Petition for
Discovery filed in the Eleventh Judicial District Court on
September 18, 2017 and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in
the New Mexico Supreme Court, which was denied on December
15, 2017. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 11; at 5-6, ¶ 12).
Cochran asserts a denial of due process as the sole grounds
for his § 2254 Petition. (Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 12).
Petitioner Cochran also states:
“Petitioner seeks to file a pro se state petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 5-802 (I)(4) NMRA. Pro
se litigants must petition the district court to pursue
discovery. Petitioner is unable to construct a meaningful and
cogent petition without first obtaining his discovery. . .
Petitioner is not challenging his conviction under §
2254. Petitioner seeks review of the State of New
Mexico's denial of his due process right to pursue post
conviction relief under Rule 5-802 NMRA. Petitioner contends
that he has constitutional rights under both federal and
at 5, 13). Cochran asks the Court to “order the State
of New Mexico to grant Petitioner's request for discovery
and find that Rule 5-802(I)(4) is unconstitutional for
barring equal protection and the constitutional right to
petition the State for habeas corpus relief.” (Doc. 1
April 6, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause,
noting that Cochran's Petition appeared to be time-barred
or, alternatively, did not state a claim on which relief can
be granted. (Doc. 4). The Court ordered Cochran to show
cause, within 30 days, why the Petition should not be
dismissed. Cochran responded to the Order to Show Cause on
May 4, 2015. (Doc. 5). In his Response, Cochran again states
that he is not challenging his conviction or sentence and he
“reiterates and acknowledges that under the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) that the one-year statute of
limitations has long since expired in his case.” (Doc.
5 at 3). Instead, he states that:
“the crux of the matter hinges on whether or not the
State of New Mexico can legally establish rules that violate
due process and equal protection of prisoners who seek post
conviction relief through a state petition for a writ of
for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody
under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) are governed by a one-year statute of
limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Section 2244(d)(1)
“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made