Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08021/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08021-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Denning,

Petitioner,

vs.

Laura Schweitzer, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8021-PCT-PGR (HCE)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Estrada (doc. #37) in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Report and

Recommendation (doc. #38), the Court concludes that the petitioner’s objections

should be overruled as meritless because that the Magistrate Judge correctly

determined that the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 on May 24, 2007, should be dismissed as time-barred inasmuch as it was

filed more than ten years after the limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1) expired on April 24, 1997.

First, the Court rejects the petitioner’s contention that the commencement

of the AEDPA’s limitation period was extended by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D),

which provides that the one-year limitations period commences as of “the date on

which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been

Case 3:07-cv-08021-PGR Document 39 Filed 12/07/09 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

1

 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s statute

of limitations-related arguments based on the Nevada testimony apply only to

Grounds I, III, and portions of Grounds V and VI of his habeas petition.

- 2 -

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”1

 The petitioner, who was

convicted in part of the sexual assault of two girls under the age of fifteen, and

given enhanced sentences because they were under fifteen, argues that

testimony from these victims in related hearings in Nevada in December of 1987

shows that one of the victims was fifteen at the time she was assaulted and that

the assault of the other victim may have taken place outside of Arizona. The

petitioner argues in part that since he was unsuccessful in obtaining the

transcripts of this testimony until August of 2005, the limitations period could not

have began running for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(D) prior to then.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it is immaterial for

purposes of the statute of limitations that the petitioner did not obtain the

transcripts until August of 2005 since it is undisputed that the petitioner knew of

these factual predicates in December of 1987 given that he was present in the

Nevada court when the testimony of the victims related to these issues was

given. It is this contemporaneous knowledge on the petitioner’s part that

triggered § 2244(d)(1)(D)’s due diligence requirement, not the receipt eighteen

years later of the transcripts. 

Second, the Court also rejects the petitioner’s contention that

commencement of the limitations period was delayed pursuant to statutory tolling

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the

petitioner had no state post-conviction relief (PCR) proceeding pending between

April 24, 1996 and April 24, 1997, i.e., during the time the AEDPA’s one-year

Case 3:07-cv-08021-PGR Document 39 Filed 12/07/09 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

2

 The Court also rejects the petitioner’s arguments that his federal

habeas petition was timely filed because the lack of legal materials related to the

AEDPA and his failure to be given the Nevada transcripts for eighteen years

constituted state-created impediments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B).

- 3 -

limitations period was running, inasmuch as his first two PCRs were filed and

resolved before the effective date of the AEDPA and his other three PCRs were

not filed until long after the AEDPA’s limitations period had expired.

Third, the Court also rejects the petitioner’s contention that the

commencement of the limitations period was subject to equitable tolling. The

petitioner’s argument that such tolling is appropriate because he was not

knowledgeable about the AEDPA’s requirements due to a lack of legal materials

available to him is insufficient to establish that the untimeliness of his federal

habeas petition was caused by an external impediment and not by his own lack of

diligence. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s

ignorance of the law and lack of legal sophistication do not of themselves

constitute the required extraordinary circumstances, and that any alleged lack of

legal materials during the relevant limitations period, i.e., between April of 1996

and April of 1997, does not establish the required causal connection between the

unavailability of AEDPA-related information and the untimeliness of his federal

habeas petition because the petitioner has not shown what, if anything, he did to

ascertain his rights regarding federal habeas review prior to filing his habeas

petition.2

Furthermore, the petitioner’s argument that the eighteen year delay in

providing him with the Nevada transcripts establishes an extraordinary

circumstance justifying equitable tolling is also unpersuasive because (1) that

delay does nothing to explain his failure to timely file his claims unrelated to the

Case 3:07-cv-08021-PGR Document 39 Filed 12/07/09 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

- 4 -

Nevada testimony, i.e., Grounds II, IV, and portions of Grounds V and VI, and 

(2) as to the remaining claims, i.e., Grounds I, III, and portions of Grounds V and

VI, the petitioner has not established that he diligently attempted to obtained the

Nevada transcripts throughout the eighteen year period.

Third, the Court further rejects the petitioner’s contention that the AEDPA’s

limitations period has no applicability to his claim of actual innocence, i.e., his

claim that he is actually innocent of the facts giving rise to the sentencing

enhancement for one of the victims based on the Nevada testimony of that victim

that she was fifteen at the time she was sexually assaulted. Assuming that the

application of the actual innocence exception applies to a claim challenging a

noncapital sentencing error, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the

more appropriate construction of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations is that it

applies to claims of actual innocence and thus requires such claims to be brought

diligently. As the Court has already concluded, the petitioner did not pursue any

claim arising from the victim’s age with reasonable diligence after he first learned

of the age-related issue in December of 1987.

However, since, as extensively discussed by the Magistrate Judge, there is

no precedent binding on this Court regarding the issue of whether a claim of

untimeliness under the AEDPA may be avoided by a claim of actual innocence,

and since there is a split of authority among the federal courts regarding this

issue, the Court concludes that a certificate of appealability should issue solely as

to this issue. As to the other claims raised by the petitioner, no certificate of

appealability is appropriate because the petitioner has not shown either that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of

the denial of a constitutional right, or that jurists of reason would find it debatable

Case 3:07-cv-08021-PGR Document 39 Filed 12/07/09 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

- 5 -

whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling. Therefore,

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

(doc. #37) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. #6) is

denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. The Clerk

of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall issue

solely as to the petitioner’s contention that the statute of limitations set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) does not apply to his claim of actual innocence.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2009.

Case 3:07-cv-08021-PGR Document 39 Filed 12/07/09 Page 5 of 5