Tristan v. Guerrero

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
AUGUSTINE TRISTAN,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00057
ERIC GUERRERO,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Respondent Eric Guerrero’s motion for summary judgment.
D.E. 10. On March 16, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that the Court grant the
motion and dismiss Petitioner Augustine Tristan’s habeas corpus petition as time barred.
D.E. 13. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the
Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner timely
filed a “Written Objection” with the Court on March 30, 2026. D.E. 15.
A district court must review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters to which the parties have filed
specific, written objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After considering proper objections, the
district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those portions of the
proposed findings and recommendations. Id. As to any portion for which no objection is
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 6:25-cv-00057 Document 17 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law.
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
In his sole objection, Petitioner states that the reason he filed his petition late was
because he is “100% disabled for PTSD.” D.E. 15. He also mentions that he did not have
a lawyer to help him with his petition. These reasons are insufficient to excuse Petitioner’s
untimeliness or to warrant equitable tolling. As noted in the M&R, “neither a plaintiff's
unfamiliarity with the legal process nor his lack of representation during the applicable
filing period merits equitable tolling.” Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999)
(per curiam).
Moreover, while mental illness or disability may sometimes warrant equitable
tolling, a petitioner must show that he is incompetent and that his incompetence affected
his ability to file a petition on time. Jones v. Stephens, 541 F. App’x 499, 505 (5th Cir.
2013). Petitioner has not made this showing. Accordingly, the objection is
OVERRULED.1
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, as well as Petitioner’s objection and all other relevant
documents in the record, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s M&R to which objections were specifically directed, the Court
OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
1 In the rest of his “written objection,” Petitioner merely re-urges the grounds raised in his petition. D.E. 15. Because
this is not directed at a specific portion of the M&R, it is not a proper objection and the Court need not address it.
Case 6:25-cv-00057 Document 17 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 12). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED,
and the Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability.
ORDERED on May 8, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-00057 Document 17 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3