Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00806/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00806-2/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

 1 On October 29, 2001, a Maricopa County grand jury indictment charged Petitioner

with one count of first-degree murder. On April 30, 2002, a jury found Petitioner guilty of

the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. On June 18, 2002, Petitioner was

sentenced to an aggravated term of twenty years imprisonment pursuant to his conviction.

The trial court imposed an aggravated sentence, inter alia, because Petitioner had committed

the offense for pecuniary gain, it also found that the victim’s death occurred in a particularly

cruel and heinous manner.

 2 The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that Petitioner’s petition for a writ

of habeas corpus is barred by the statute of limitations applicable pursuant to the AEDPA.

Petitioner has failed to show that the circumstances in his particular case warrant the

application of equitable tolling. Consequently, because Petitioner’s action for habeas relief

was not timely filed and Petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims in the state courts, the

petition must be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maurice Washington, )

)

Petitioner, ) CV 08-0806-PHX-PGR (MEA)

v. )

) ORDER

Dora B. Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Aspey (Doc. 15) based on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 Having reviewed de novo the Petition, the Report and Recommendation2

Case 2:08-cv-00806-PGR Document 19 Filed 01/07/09 Page 1 of 2
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 In his Objections, Petitioner contends that the constitutional deprivations of his due

process rights include inadequate access to the courts amounting to a cumbersome obstacle

for pro se litigants, and ineffective assistance of counsel. 

2

of Magistrate Judge Aspey, and the Petitioner's objections3 to the Report and

Recommendation, and in light of the Court’s finding that the Petitioner's objections lack

merit,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED and DENIED with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00806-PGR Document 19 Filed 01/07/09 Page 2 of 2