Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02501/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02501-1/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 

Verne Leslie Watson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ron Credio, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02501-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

AND 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS 

 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan, (Doc. 12), regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the 

parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. 12 at 5 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)). 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R de novo. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made). The 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended 

decision within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and overrules 

Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate”). 

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 14 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Petitioner’s objection to the R&R argues, without authority, that the Court can 

ignore the one year period of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), which 

Petitioner characterizes as “artificial arbitrary and misconstrued rules and deadlines.” 

(Doc. 13 at 4.) Petitioner does not challenge the R&R’s finding that the one year 

limitation period expired on July 8, 2011, more than two years before his Petition was 

filed. Nor does Petitioner challenge the R&R’s finding that he is not entitled to equitable 

tolling because he failed to demonstrate that he pursued his rights diligently and that 

some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing his petition. (Doc. 12 at 5.) 

The Court agrees that the Petition is untimely and is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 12), is ACCEPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, having considered the issuance of a 

Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1), with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 25th day of June, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02501-DLR Document 14 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2