Coe v. Lumpkin

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LUCAS RORIC COE,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00020
ERIC GUERRERO,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Lucas Roric Coe=s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and Respondent Eric Guerrero’s answer. The answer does not directly address the claims
raised in the petition but argues instead that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Having carefully considered the petition, the answer, Coe’s response, all the arguments
and authorities submitted by the parties, and the relevant record, the Court is of the opinion that
Guerrero’s request to dismiss the petition as time-barred should be denied.
I. Background
Coe is an inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ATDCJ@).
He was convicted by a jury in the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas of Super
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child Under Six Years Old. He is serving a sentence of life
without parole. Petition (Doc. # 1) at 2.
Among the evidence presented at trial was testimony that the alleged victim tested positive
for Herpes, and that Coe was also positive for Herpes. Coe states that he received permission in
2019 to test samples from the alleged victim. He contends that two tests both found that the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 04, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-00020 Document 14 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
alleged victim was negative for Herpes. Coe filed two subsequent state habeas applications based
on this new evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on September 30, 2022.
Coe filed this federal habeas corpus petition on January 4, 2023. He raises several claims
for relief based on the negative Herpes result and the state’s alleged failure to disclose other
relevant evidence. The Respondent seeks dismissal, arguing that Coe’s claims are barred by the
statute of limitations.
II. Analysis
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AAEDPA@), a state prisoner has
one year in which to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Fierro v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 674, 679
(5th Cir. 2002). The statute of limitations begins to run on Athe date on which the factual predicate
of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.@
28 U.S.C. ' 2244(d)(1)(D).
Coe argues that exculpatory information was withheld from him until less than one year
before he filed his most recent state habeas application. Specifically, he contends that he only
recently learned of an autopsy result showing that the victim tested negative for herpes, despite
trial evidence that both she and Coe were positive. He also claims that the offense report was not
disclosed.
The respondent, pointing to the autopsy report, argues that the negative herpes finding was
presented during the trial. The autopsy report submitted at trial, however, only notes that a swab
of the oral cavity came back negative for Herpes (HSV II). Other trial evidence showed positive
results, and Coe’s petition specifically references both oral and vaginal swab results disclosed
more recently. The respondent fails to show that this information was available to Coe at trial.
Case 4:23-cv-00020 Document 14 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Similarly, the respondent points to an affidavit from a member of Coe’s trial team noting
that an offense report was in the materials that they received. But the petition contends that Coe
did not receive the complete offense reports, and nothing in the affidavit specifies what was
received. It may be that relevant portions of the offense report were not disclosed.
Finally, the respondents argue that Coe has not shown that other material that he says was
not disclosed until years after trial was actually unavailable. The statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense. See, e.g., Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999). As such, it is
the respondent’s burden to prove that Coe’s claims and/or evidence is time-barred. The respondent
has failed to do so at this juncture.
III. Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent’s request to dismiss the petition as time-barred
is DENIED at this time. The Respondent will answer the claims in the petition or file a dispositive
motion addressing those claims within 30 days.
The Clerk shall notify all parties and provide them with a true copy of this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on December 3, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-00020 Document 14 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3