Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08215/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08215-1/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 1

 The petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation in effect

go just to the merits of his habeas petition, as does his motion for an evidentiary

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Timothy Bradley,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8215-PCT-PGR (ECV)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Voss in light of Petitioner’s Response and Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation to Deny by Procedural Default (Doc. 22), the Court

finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled and that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because it

was filed, at the very least, almost one year after the expiration of the AEDPA’s

one-year statute of limitations and the petitioner has made no showing that the

limitations period should be equitably tolled.1

 

Case 3:09-cv-08215-PGR Document 23 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 3
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

hearing (Doc. 21), and those are issues that the Court cannot decide due to the

untimeliness of the petition. 

Given that the petition is clearly time-barred, the Court does not believe

that there is any reason to grant the petitioner’s request, set forth in his

objections, that the Court stay this matter until May, 2011 so that he may have

time to consult with an attorney regarding all issues raised in this action.

- 2 -

The Court further finds that the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a 

certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) because the

dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is justified by a plain 

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

debatable, and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) because any such appeal would not be

taken in good faith given the Court’s stated reason for the dismissal of his

petition. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s [Motion for] Rule 8 Evidentiary

Hearing (Doc. 21) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and

that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of apppealability shall issue

and that the petitioner is not authorized to appeal in forma pauperis.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-08215-PGR Document 23 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08215-PGR Document 23 Filed 12/07/10 Page 3 of 3