Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00291/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00291-1/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

Michael Kenneth Biggs, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00291-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 18), respondents’ response (doc. 24), petitioner’s reply

(doc. 27), and the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

recommending that the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and

dismissed with prejudice (doc. 33). We also have before us what is characterized as a motion

for reconsideration by the petitioner (doc. 34). This filing is properly construed as

petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. 

Petitioner was convicted in 1994 of two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a

minor and sentenced to two consecutive 15-year terms of imprisonment. He filed a habeas

petition in 2004, challenging the same conviction and sentence that he challenges in the

present petition. See CV-04-2178-PHX-NVW. The court ruled that his petition was

untimely and dismissed the petition with prejudice (doc. 17). 

Case 2:12-cv-00291-FJM Document 35 Filed 10/17/13 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

- 2 -

The dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely under the AEDPA statute of limitations

“constitutes a disposition on the merits, and . . . a further petition challenging the same

conviction would be ‘second or successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” McNabb

v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Before a petitioner may file a second or successive habeas petition, he must “move

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not sought this authorization in the

court of appeals. He is therefore precluded from habeas relief. 

Pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, we have considered petitioner’s

objections and reviewed the report and recommendation de novo. We accept the

recommended decision of the United States Magistrate Judge. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED

DENYING AND DISMISSING with prejudice the second amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus (doc. 18). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified

on procedural grounds and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

The clerk shall reclassify doc. 34 as objections to the report and recommendation.

DATED this 16th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00291-FJM Document 35 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 2