Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00334/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00334-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Zane William Gray, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-0334-PHX-GMS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Zane William Gray was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault in January 2006,

in Maricopa County Superior Court. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on

February 12, 2009 and an amended petition on July 3, 2009. In his initial petition, he cites

several passages from the Bible, and discusses his religious conversion. He does not make

any constitutional claim concerning either his conviction or sentence. In his amended

petition, he contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial

by continuing his trial date upon a request by the prosecutor. Respondents argue that Gray’s

amended petition is untimely because it does not relate back to his initial petition, which was

timely filed. In the alternative, Respondents argue that his claim is technically exhausted and

procedurally defaulted. The Court concludes that the amended petition is untimely, and

recommends that his amended petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 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 - 2 -

BACKGROUND

Gray was convicted of aggravated assault based upon an incident where he threatened

his mother with a meat cleaver. Following the imposition of an aggravated 12.5-year term

of imprisonment, Gray appealed, raising two issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion

and violated Rule 8 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure by continuing his trial; and

(2) the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence with a dangerous prior felony conviction

where the prior conviction had not been alleged as dangerous. In a memorandum decision

filed on June 21, 2007, the court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence (Doc. #1-2).

Gray was informed by appellate counsel of the memorandum decision, and of

counsel’s decision not to file a petition for review on Gray’s behalf (Doc. #21, Exh A).

Counsel also informed Gray of his right to seek relief on his own, the deadline for filing such

relief, and counsel’s contemporaneous motion for a 30-day extension to allow Gray to file

his own petition (Id.). On July 27, 2007, the court of appeals granted an extension until

August 27 for Gray to file his petition for review (Doc. #18, Exh J). On August 23, 2007,

Gray was given an additional 30-day extension, up to and including September 26 (Id.). On

October 15, 2007, the court of appeals granted a further extension, up to and including

November 9, 2007 (Id.). On November 23, 2007, Gray was given an additional extension,

up to and including December 19, 2007, to file his petition for review. Despite the many

extensions granted, Gray chose not to file a petition for review.

On August 9, 2007, Gray filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief; on August 16,

2007 counsel was appointed (Doc. #18, Exh F, G). On January 15, 2008, counsel filed a

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to Rule 32.1(c), arguing that the trial court had

improperly enhanced his sentence (Id., Exh H). On April 7, 2008, the trial court dismissed

the petition pursuant to Rule 32.6(c) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, finding the

claims were precluded, having been raised on direct review (Doc. #11-2).

On April 10, 2008, Gray received a letter from post-conviction counsel informing him

that she would not be filing a petition for review because of her conclusion that there was no

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 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

1

Respondents contend in the alternative that Gray’s amended petition, while

technically exhausted, is procedurally defaulted. In light of the Court’s conclusion that the

amended petition is untimely, it need not reach this issue.

- 3 -

reasonable probability that the court of appeals would review his case (Doc. #21, Exh E).

She also informed him of his right to seek review on his own, the deadline for seeking such

review, and enclosed the forms used for filing a petition for review and for requesting a 30-

day extension to seek review (Id.). Gray chose not to seek review of the trial court’s

dismissal of his post-conviction proceedings.

On February 12, 2009, Gray filed his federal petition (Doc. #1) and a Motion for

Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #3). On March 19, 2009, the District Court denied

his motion and ordered him to pay the filing fee within 30 days (Doc. #4). On April 20, Gray

requested an extension of time to pay his filing fee (Doc. #6); on May 1, the District Court

granted a 30-day extension and Gray timely paid the fee (Doc. ##7, 8). On June 18, 2009,

the District Court dismissed Gray’s petition, with leave to amend, stating as follows:

Petitioner seeks a reduction of his sentence because “12.5 years is a

long time.” Petitioner does not allege a constitutional violation but states,

“forgive me for not going th[rough] a[n] Amendment. I gave up on everything

but by the ‘Grace of God’ I am saved th[rough] Jesus Christ.” Petitioner

makes no allegations relevant to his conviction or sentence.

(Doc. #10 at 1-2).

On July 3, 2009, Gray filed an amended petition, in which he acknowledged that in his

original petition there were “[n]o grounds raise[d], only my testimony in Jesus Christ” (Doc.

#11 at 5). In his amended petition, he argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial

was violated (Id. at 6). In their Answer, Respondents contend that Gray’s amended petition

is untimely because it was filed after the one-year period of limitations had lapsed, and the

amended petition does not relate back to his original petition. In addition, Respondents argue

that Gray has not suggested any extraordinary circumstances that would entitle him to

equitable tolling.1

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 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

2

Instructions for Filing a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

by a Person in State Custody in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

at 3 (emphasis added).

- 4 -

DISCUSSION

Gray was required to file his federal petition within one year of the “date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S.Ct. 681,

685 (2009). However, “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Rule 31.19(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that

a petition for review from a court of appeals decision be filed within 30 days of the decision.

However, because of the numerous extensions granted by the court of appeals, Gray’s

judgment became final on December 19, 2007, when the final extension of time allowed by

the court of appeals expired. See Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1072-74 (9th Cir.

2007). Because Gray’s post-conviction proceedings were pending on that date, the

limitations period was immediately tolled until the trial court dismissed the petition on April

7, 2008. The limitations period began to run on April 8, 2008, and expired on April 8, 2009.

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus cases requires a petitioner to

“specify all the grounds for relief available” and to “state facts supporting each ground.”

Gray was also warned in the instructions attached to his habeas form that he “must raise all

grounds for relief that relate to this conviction or sentence. Any grounds not raised in this

petition will likely be barred from being raised in any subsequent federal action.”2

 A habeas

petition may be amended “as provided in the rules of procedure application to civil actions.”

28 U.S.C. § 2242. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an amendment relates back

to the original pleading when the amendment “asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the

conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 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 -

pleading.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B). A new claim raised in an amended habeas petition

filed after the expiration of the limitations period, relates back to the original petition, thereby

avoiding a limitations bar, if it arises “out of the same core of operative facts as a claim

contained in the original petition.” Hebner v. McGrath, 543 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008)

(citing Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005)). “It is not enough that the new argument

pertains to the same trial, conviction, or sentence.” Id.

Gray filed his original petition on February 12, 2009, within the one-year limitations

period. His amended petition, although filed within the 30-day period allowed by the District

Court, was filed 86 days after the expiration of the one-year limitations period, and is

therefore untimely unless it relates back to the original petition. Gray does not dispute

Respondents’ assertion that his claim raised in the amended petition is a new one. He admits

that he raised no claims in his original petition. Having acknowledged that he raised no

claims, by definition there cannot exist any “core of operative facts” in the original petition

to which an amended petition could relate back. Under such circumstances, the amended

petition cannot relate back to the original petition in order to avoid the limitations bar.

Hebner.

In addition, Gray is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has not demonstrated the

existence of any extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from including his

constitutional claim in the original petition. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418-19

(2005). Indeed, as evidenced by the procedural history of his state court proceedings he

recited in his original petition, Gray was aware of his speedy trial claim at the time he filed

his petition, and could have included it as a ground for habeas relief at that time. He chose

not to do so. Gray’s assertion that he complied with the Court’s order in timely filing his

amended petition does not support a claim of equitable tolling. Implicit in this argument is

the idea that the District Court should have alerted him to any further deadlines which he was

required to meet. The District Court has no obligation to make a statute of limitations

calculation and inform a habeas petitioner of such a deadline prior to dismissing a petition

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 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 -

with leave to amend. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 235 (2004). It has no obligation to act

as counsel to a pro se litigant. Id. at 231. Indeed, the procedural history of the state court

proceedings indicates both Gray’s familiarity with the procedural rules and filing

requirements, and his conscious choice on more than one occasion to not comply with such

requirements.

IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Zane William Gray’s amended petition

for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #11).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00334-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/15/10 Page 6 of 6