Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00772/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00772-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Felton Crago, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-772-TUC-FRZ (GEE)

 ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody, pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 2254, alleging violations

of Petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and Sixth Amendment

right to a fair trial. 

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona.

Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds issued her Report and Recommendation, filed

May 5, 2008, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, dismiss this action in its entirety, as time barred. 

The Report and Recommendation provides an in-depth analysis and thorough

discussion of the facts and issues and matters presented. Also set forth in detail by the

Case 4:05-cv-00772-FRZ Document 37 Filed 12/31/08 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 -

Magistrate Judge is the procedural and factual history of the underlying state court criminal

action. 

Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her recommendation based on the finding that

Petitioner’s third state petition for post-conviction relief did not fall within the gateway

exceptions outlined under Ariz. R.Crim.P. 32.1, and therefore, was untimely and not properly

filed for purposes of tolling the statutory limitations period of one year, imposed by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), under the relevant

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

“Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)” was filed May 16, 2008, arguing that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

is contrary to the record of facts and that his third petition was “properly filed” to satisfy the

statutory time requirements under the AEDPA. 

The Court, having made an independent review of the record herein, including

Petitioner’s objections, finds that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Edmonds shall be adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #34] of Magistrate

Judge Edmonds is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and

conclusions of law by this Court; 

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

DENIED and that this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Judgment shall issue

accordingly.

DATED this 30th day of December, 2008.

Case 4:05-cv-00772-FRZ Document 37 Filed 12/31/08 Page 2 of 2