Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00363/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00363-1/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

1

Petitioner cites to Rule 32.4 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal

Procedure but only includes the beginning quotation mark not the end, so

it is unclear where the quotation is intended to stop. (Objection at 3

¶ 13-20.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Warren Frank Stafford,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-09-363-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.2 for pretrial management

and a Report and Recommendation (R&R). Before the Court are a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2254, a Report and

Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s Objection. The

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time-barred.

A. Untimely Filed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petitioner disputes the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the

second notice was untimely filed. (Objection at 3.)1 Petitioner goes on

to conclude that “[t]he record is clear that the running of the statutory

time did not begin June 3, 2008, but in fact, 90 days hence on August 1,

Case 4:09-cv-00363-DCB Document 16 Filed 05/27/10 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

2008, and therefore, the filing of the Petition on June 20, 2009 is

within the limitation period.” (Objection at 3 ¶12-24.)

After conducting an independent review of the record, the Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge, as follows:

The limitation period did not immediately commence, however,

because Stafford’s first post-conviction relief proceeding

was pending at that time. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). This

proceeding tolled the limitation statute until June 3, 2008,

when the Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for

review. Id., p. 8. The limitation period began running the

next day and ended one year later on June 3, 2009. The

instant petition was filed on June 20, 2009. It is timebarred. 

(R&R at 4 ¶13-18.)

The Magistrate Judge went on to correctly conclude that the second

post-conviction relief proceeding did not toll the running of the

statute, because it was filed after the deadline for filing a notice of

post-conviction relief and was therefore not properly filed. Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). Also, that the notice of postconviction relief did not qualify for the “newly discovered material

facts” exception, because no actual petition was ever filed.

Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.4(a).

B. Certificate of Appealability (COA) Denied

This Court has authority to issue a COA, if the Petitioner has made

a substantial showing that he was denied a federal constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

"Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on

the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward:

The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

Case 4:09-cv-00363-DCB Document 16 Filed 05/27/10 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

wrong." United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted).

The issue is somewhat more complicated where the district court

dismisses the petition based on procedural grounds, without reaching the

merits of the underlying claim, then the COA issues if the prisoner

shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. The first step is to

decide whether the petition raises a debatable constitutional question,

then the question is whether the procedural issue raised in the petition

is highly debatable. Id.

Here, the Court ruled on procedural grounds. The Court finds that

neither the constitutional question raised nor the procedural rule

applied are highly debatable by jurists of reason. The Court denies

Petitioner a COA. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases in

the United States District Courts (2009).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmonds’ Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by this Court as

the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

is denied and dismissed as time-barred. This action is terminated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Certificate of Appealability is

DENIED. 

DATED this 25th day of May, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00363-DCB Document 16 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3