Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02290/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02290-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jorge Herberto Moreno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-2290-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner Jorge Herberto Moreno filed his Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ

of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody on November 21, 2011, challenging his

March 22, 2002 conviction for First Degree Murder. Petitioner's conviction occurred as a

result of a guilty plea. Petitioner states that the grounds raised are 1) denial of effective

assistance during prior petition, 2) significant change in the law, 3) due process and equal

protection violation during PCR review, and 4) accomplice liability. His petition contains

no elaboration of the grounds raised. Instead, Petitioner attaches to his petition various state

court documents submitted during his various Petitions for Post-Conviction Relief.

Respondents answered the petition on February 8, 2012 requesting that the petition be

denied, in part, because the petition was untimely. Petitioner filed his reply on March 12,

2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02290-SRB Document 22 Filed 10/15/12 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

27

28

- 2 -

On September 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice because the petition is barred by

the statute of limitations. The Report and Recommendation details the various proceedings

in state court on post-conviction relief and shows that Petitioner's conviction became final

on conclusion of direct review on September 5, 2006. The Magistrate Judge also concluded

that the limitations period was statutorily tolled from September 5, 2006 until October 23,

2007 by the pendency of Petitioner's Third Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which raised

the claim of a change in the law. At best Petitioner's one-year period within which to file a

federal petition began to run on October 23, 2007 and expired on October 22, 2008. As the

Magistrate Judge concluded, absent equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 the petition must be dismissed with prejudice because it is

untimely. The Magistrate Judge also analyzed the question of equitable tolling and found

no basis for equitable tolling. The Magistrate Judge recommended both that the petition be

dismissed with prejudice and that a certificate of appealability be denied.

Petitioner filed timely written objections on September 20, 2012. None of those

objections point to any error in the Report and Recommendation's analysis of the expiration

of the statute of limitations. Petitioner briefly mentions actual innocence by stating as

follows: "Grounds I thru III revolve around the illegal plea agreement that is a clear violation

of Petitioners (sic) right protected by the United States Constitution proving that it would

open the actual innocence decision made by the Ninth Circuit." This statement is insufficient

to raise a claim of actual innocence that would relieve Petitioner of the bar of statute of

limitations.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:11-cv-02290-SRB Document 22 Filed 10/15/12 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

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because

jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural

ruling. 

DATED this 12th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02290-SRB Document 22 Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 3