Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00932/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00932-0/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

*

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Charles L. Ryan, the

Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, replaces Dora Schriro.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Lloyd Allen, ) No. CIV 08-0932-PHX-PGR (DKD)

)

Petitioner, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

vs. )

)

Charles L. Ryan,*

 et al., )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Robert Lloyd Allen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 15, 2008,

challenging his convictions in Maricopa County Superior Court for sexual conduct with a

minor, attempted child molestation, and attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and a 20-

year term of imprisonment, followed by lifetime probation (Doc. #1). He raises four grounds

for habeas relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) involuntary guilty plea; (3) double

jeopardy violation and prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) excessive bail and cruel and

unusual punishment. Respondents contend that the petition is untimely. The Court agrees

and recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

On May 19, 2003, following the entry of a guilty plea on May 13, 2003, Allen moved

to withdraw from the plea; the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found no

Case 2:08-cv-00932-PGR Document 18 Filed 07/08/09 Page 1 of 5
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 -

manifest injustice which would allow Allen to withdraw from the plea (Doc. #13, Exh B-E).

On September 5, 2003, Allen was sentenced (Id., Exh F). As part of the proceeding, he

signed a Notice of Rights of Review After Conviction and Procedure, indicating receipt of

a copy of the notice explaining his right to seek post-conviction relief and the procedures to

follow in exercising this right, including all applicable deadlines (Id., Exh CC). On October

16, 2003, Allen filed a notice of post-conviction relief (Id., Exh G). On April 14, 2004,

counsel filed a notice indicating that he found no colorable claims, and requested that Allen

be given additional time to file a pro per petition. Allen was given until June 3, 2004, to file

a petition (Id., Exh H- J). On June 16, 2004, the trial court dismissed the Rule 32 proceeding

because Allen failed to file a petition (Id., Exh K).

On May 24, 2005, Allen filed a notice of post-conviction relief, contending that this

petition was not filed in a timely manner because he “was not aware of the time frame.” He

also alleged that the public defender could not ethically represent him in post-conviction

review because the office had represented him at trial (Id., Exh L). On June 27, 2005, the

trial court dismissed the notice, finding the notice untimely, and that the claims were

precluded because they should have been raised in the first post-conviction proceeding (Id.,

Exh M). Allen’s petition for review filed in the Court of Appeals on November 18, 2005 was

dismissed as untimely filed (Id., Exh N, O). Allen filed a third notice of post-conviction

proceedings on January 20, 2006, maintaining that he had been effectively abandoned by

appointed counsel as a result of counsel’s finding no colorable claim (Id., Exh P). Allen also

raised issues of double jeopardy and sentencing errors (Id.). On January 30, 2006, the trial

court dismissed the notice, finding it untimely, and that the claims were precluded because

Allen should have raised them in his first post-conviction proceedings (Id., Exh Q).

On June 30, 2006, Allen filed a fourth notice of post-conviction relief, and a petition,

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (Id., Exh R, S). On July 24, 2006, the trial court

dismissed the notice and petition, finding the claims precluded because Allen had failed to

raise them in his first post-conviction proceeding (Id., Exh T). On September 20, 2006,

Case 2:08-cv-00932-PGR Document 18 Filed 07/08/09 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Allen filed a petition for review in the court of appeals; on August 8, 2007, the court of

appeal denied review (Id., Exh W, X). On August 21, 2007, he filed a motion in the court

of appeals seeking a stay of the petition for review to further research the issue of whether

Arizona had jurisdiction to file criminal charges against him. On August 28, 2007, the court

of appeals denied the motion (Id., Exh Y, Z). On September 10, 2007, Allen filed a petition

for review in the supreme court; on December 7, 2007, the supreme court denied review (Id.,

Exh AA, BB).

In order to be timely filed, Allen was required to file his federal petition within one

year of the time his conviction became final “by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). However,

because Allen pleaded guilty, he waived the right to seek direct review. He was entitled to

bring an “of-right” post-conviction relief proceeding under Rule 32.1 of the Arizona Rules

of Criminal Procedure. "The time during which a properly filed application for postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation." See § 2244(d)(2). In addition,

the one-year limitations period did not begin to run until the conclusion of that proceeding,

the review of that proceeding, “or the expiration of time for seeking such proceeding or

review.” Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007).

Allen’s one-year limitations period began running on July 17, 2004, upon the

expiration of the time allowed under the rules for seeking review of the trial court’s dismissal

of his Rule 32 proceeding. A review of the Maricopa County Superior Court docket

indicates that Allen had no “properly filed application[s] for state post-conviction” relief in

state court during the one-year period between July 17, 2004 and July 17, 2005, when that

period of limitations expired. His notice of post-conviction relief filed May 24, 2005, 314

days after the period of limitations began to run, did not toll the limitations period because

the trial court found the notice untimely. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414, 417

(2005). In addition, the two notices of post-conviction relief filed in 2006 did not have any

Case 2:08-cv-00932-PGR Document 18 Filed 07/08/09 Page 3 of 5
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

Allen argues in his Reply that sections 2244(d)(1)(B) and (D) control the running of

the limitations period in his case. The Court disagrees. The failure of the State to provide

reference materials on the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is not an

“impediment” which prevented Allen from timely filing. In addition, the “inability of

Petitioner to obtain his complete file and information of school records showing [the] victim

was enrolled in school in California on the alleged date of the crime” does not entitle him to

use the date upon which he received the materials as “the date on which the factual predicate

of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.”

- 4 -

effect on the limitations period that had already lapsed. These later notices were untimely

and therefore not “properly filed.” See Pace. In any event they could not "restart" the period

once it had lapsed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore,

his federal petition, filed long after the expiration of the limitations period, is untimely. See

§ 2244(d)(1)(A).1

Finally, assuming that federal courts have the authority to create equitable exceptions

to jurisdictional time limitations set by Congress, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007),

Allen is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has not shown extraordinary circumstances

beyond his control which made it impossible or him to timely file: that he diligently pursued

his rights and that some “extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. at 418.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Robert Lloyd Allen’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

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 ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Case 2:08-cv-00932-PGR Document 18 Filed 07/08/09 Page 4 of 5
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 -

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. ReynaTapia, 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 7th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00932-PGR Document 18 Filed 07/08/09 Page 5 of 5