Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02296/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02296-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph A. Reister, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2296-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1).

On May 27, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)

recommending that the Petition in this case be dismissed because it is barred by the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitation. (Doc.

#14). Petitioner has filed objections to the R&R (Doc. #15) arguing that because the state

court never ruled on his second motion for post-conviction relief, that motion, in effect,

remains pending and continues to statutorily toll the AEDPA’s statute of limitations; thus

making the Petition in this case timely (Doc. #15). Respondents filed a reply to the

objections and argue that Petitioner has, in essence, abandoned his second post-conviction

relief motion, and, even giving Petitioner the benefit of the conclusion date of his third-post

conviction relief motion, the Petition in this case is still barred by the statute of limitations.

(Doc. #18).

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Magistrate Judge arrives at October 16, 2003 from September 16, 2003 by

giving Petitioner tolling for the 30 days to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, even though

Petitioner never filed a petition for review. Because neither party objects to this particular

calculation, the Court accepts it without deciding if the Court would reach the same

conclusion were the Court to review this issue de novo. See Gildon v. Bowen, 384 F.3d 883,

886 (7th Cir. 2004) (finding that a petition that was never filed is not properly filed within

the meaning of § 2244(d)(2)).

- 2 -

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Because Petitioner filed objections to the

R&R’s recommendation that this Court find the Petition untimely, the Court will review the

statute of limitations issue de novo.

The Court finds that the R&R correctly sets forth the one-year statute of limitations

found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). R&R at 4. Additionally, the R&R correctly recounts

that this limitations period is statutorily tolled while Petitioner has a “properly filed”

application for post-conviction relief or other collateral review pending with the state courts.

Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). Further the R&R correctly concludes that as of Petitioner

filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Pinal County Superior Court, 194 days

of the one-year statute of limitations had elapsed. R&R at 5. The dispute in this case arises

in calculating when the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the state courts was no

longer pending with the state courts.

The Magistrate Judge notes that the Pinal County Superior Court denied the habeas

petition (which was filed on November 18, 2002) on February 10, 2003; the Arizona Court

of Appeals denied the petition for review on August 26, 2003, and denied the motion for

reconsideration September 16, 2003. Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded that this

“petition” was not pending in state courts (as would be required to statutorily toll the AEDPA

statute of limitations) after October 16, 2003.1

 R&R at 6.

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Petitioner objects to this conclusion based on the following language in the order of

February 6, 2003 (filed February 10, 2003):

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:

Denying the Petitioner’s request for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas

Corpus and dismissing his Petition;

That the Clerk of the Court, Superior Court, Pinal County, copy the

Court’s file and forward a certified copy thereof to the Clerk of the Court,

Superior Court, Maricopa County, for filing in criminal cause CR 96-06908,

State of Arizona v. Joseph A. Reister, as provided in Rule 32.3, Arizona Rules

of Criminal Procedure.

Doc. #12-3 at 59.

It is clear to this Court that the R&R is correct that this Order of the Pinal County

Superior Court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The issue in this case stems

from the fact that Petitioner filed his petition in the trial court where he was incarcerated

(Pinal County) and not where he was convicted (Maricopa County). Under Rule 32.3 of the

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, once this was discovered the petition should have been

transferred to Maricopa County to be ruled on as a post-conviction relief petition. It should

not have been denied by the Pinal County Superior Court, as occurred in this case. It is

undisputed that the Maricopa County Superior Court either never received or never filed this

“transferred” petition and, accordingly, no Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court has

ever ruled on the petition. Doc. #18 at 3.

Despite having appealed this denial by the Pinal County Superior Court, Petitioner

now seeks to rely on the transfer provisions of Rule 32.3 to argue that he is entitled to tolling

while this petition was, and presumably still is, pending with the Maricopa County Superior

Court. In furtherance of this argument, Petitioner cites to his “motion for confirmation of

receiving Pinal County Case file No. CV 02-01181 as Provided by Rule 32.3

Ariz.R.Crim.Procedure.” to argue he was in fact seeking a ruling from the Maricopa County

Superior Court. See Doc. #18, Exhibit A. It is undisputed that the Superior Court of

Maricopa County never ruled on this motion for confirmation. Doc. #18 at 3.

The Court again notes that the Magistrate Judge is correct that the Pinal County

Superior Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was obviously aware

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

of this fact because he filed an appeal of this denial. See R&R at 2-3. Based on the fact that

this petition had been denied by the Superior Court in which Petitioner filed the petition, the

Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s calculations to be correct. Petitioner is not entitled to

statutory tolling for any period of time that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was

“pending” before the Maricopa County Superior Court because the petition was never

actually pending there.

Thus, as indicated above, this Court concludes that because the Pinal County Superior

Court actually ruled on the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and Petitioner appealed that

decision, the conclusion of the appeal represented the end of the petition for writ of habeas

corpus “pending” in the state courts. Any other result would cause a petition that has been

denied and appealed to remain pending forever because the Maricopa County Superior Court

did not reconsider this denial. Any result which causes a conviction to remain indefinitely

subject to attack is inconsistent with the policy behind the AEDPA, which is to “advance the

finality of criminal convictions[; thus, Congress] adopted a tight time line. ...” Mayle v.

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 662 (2005) (internal citations omitted). 

While the better practice might have been for the Pinal County Superior Court to

transfer the petition without ruling on it, as Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 seems

to anticipate, that is not what occurred in this case, and this Court must review each case on

the actual facts presented. Under these facts, if this Court were to find the habeas petition

of which the Maricopa County Superior Court has no record, to still be pending in the

Maricopa County Superior Court, then Petitioner’s statute of limitations has never and will

never begin to run against him. The Court finds such a result to be inconsistent with the

AEDPA and accordingly, will not construe these facts to reach such result. 

Finally, any issue of whether the state courts follow their own internal rules is not

cognizable on habeas, Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573, 584 (9th Cir. 1999), and, similarly,

it is this Court’s opinion that the state court’s failure to follow its own rules also does not

present a basis for statutorily tolling of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Petitioner

received a final ruling within the state courts on his petition, and this Court finds that such

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

a final ruling caused the petition to no longer be pending within the state court, even though

it appears the wrong court made the final ruling.

Further, the Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable

tolling for this time period. To be entitled to equitable tolling, Petitioner must show “(1) that

he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood

in his way and prevented timely filing.” Lawrence v. Florida, 127 S. Ct. 1079, 1085 (2007)

(internal quotations omitted). Petitioner filed only 2 items in Maricopa County Superior

Court between the Pinal County denial (February 2003) through the filing of the

Respondent’s final reply (June 2008) which were arguably “pursuing” the “transferred”

petition in Maricopa County: (1) a motion for confirmation, and (2) a letter seeking a case

number for the “transferred” case.

First, Petitioner did not file his motion for confirmation until October 16, 2003, over

eight months after the copy of the file was supposed to have been sent to Maricopa County.

 Second, Petitioner waited another year (until November 5, 2004) before sending his letter

seeking a case number. Third, since November 5, 2004, Petitioner has done nothing with

regard to the allegedly transferred habeas petition in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Finally, Petitioner’s filing of a second post conviction relief petition on October 18, 2005

(two years after the motion for confirmation), shows that Petitioner had quit pursuing any

relief through this allegedly transferred habeas petition. Therefore, the Court finds that

Petitioner has not been pursuing this matter diligently such that he would be entitled to

equitable tolling for the amount of time necessary for this Petition to be timely.

Based on these conclusions, and considering that as of October 16, 2003, 194 days of

the AEDPA’s statute of limitations had already elapsed, the Petition in this case was due by

April 4, 2004. The Petition in this case was not filed until November 26, 2007, well after the

expiration of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations and is, therefore, time barred.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is accepted and

adopted; the objections (Doc. #15) are overruled.

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is dismissed, with prejudice,

because it is barred by the statute of limitations and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02296-JAT Document 19 Filed 08/25/08 Page 6 of 6