Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01011/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01011-0/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 V. Nelson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1011-PHX-PGR (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Earl V. Nelson. Doc. #1. Following a jury trial in

Maricopa County Superior Court in 1998, Petitioner was convicted of one count of Reckless

Manslaughter. Doc. #10 Exh. B. On December 21, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced to 13

years in prison for the offense. Doc. #10, Exh. C.

Through counsel, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review in the Arizona

Court of Appeals. Doc. #10, Exh. D. Counsel for Petitioner subsequently advised the Court

that after searching the record he was unable to discover any issues to raise on appeal. Doc.

#10, Exh. E at 14. The Court provided Petitioner an opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief but Petitioner declined to do so. Id. On September 28, 1999, the Court issued a

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 6
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 claims that he sought review of his second petition in the Arizona Court

of Appeals. Doc. #1 at 3. The petition for review he refers to, however, was for his fourth

petition for post-conviction relief. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought review of his

first three petitions.

- 2 -

Memorandum Decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. Doc. #10, Exh. E at

15. 

On September 20, 1999, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction relief under Rule

32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. #10, Exh. F. The trial court appointed

counsel to represent Petitioner. Doc. #10, Exh. G. On December 10, 1999, Petitioner’s

counsel filed a Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction Review and Request for Extension

of Time to Allow Defendant to File Pro Per Petition. Doc. #10, Exh. I. In the notice,

Petitioner’s counsel indicated that he could find no claims for relief to raise on Petitioner’s

behalf. Id. Petitioner never filed a pro per petition and, therefore, the trial court dismissed

the petition for post-conviction relief in a Minute Entry filed on June 10, 2000. Doc. #10,

Exh. K. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona

Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed a second Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on September 15, 2004.

Doc. #10, Exh. L. In a Minute Entry filed on September 20, 2004, the trial court found that

the petition was untimely and ruled that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), does

not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final. Doc. #10, Exh. M.

Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. Id. Petitioner

did not seek review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or in the Arizona Supreme Court.1

On October 4, 2004, Petitioner filed a third Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. Doc.

#10, Exh. N. The trial court treated the new notice as a motion for rehearing given that it

raised the same Blakely claim asserted in the previous petition. Doc. #10, Exh. O. The court

found no good cause to alter its previous ruling and it denied the motion. Id. Petitioner did

not seek review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or Arizona Supreme Court. He did,

however, file a Motion to Correct Minute Entry in which he claimed the trial court should

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 6
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 -

not have treated his third petition as a motion for rehearing. Doc. #10, Exh. P. The trial

court denied the motion. Doc. #10, Exh. Q. 

On September 8, 2005, Petitioner filed fourth Petition for Post-Conviction Relief,

again alleging that his sentence was unlawfully aggravated in violation of the rule announced

in Blakely. Doc. #10, Exh. R. The trial court again denied the petition based on it previous

ruling that Blakely “did not apply retroactively to defendant because his conviction was final

before Blakely was decided.” Doc. #10, Exh. S. Petitioner submitted a Petition for Review

to the Arizona Court of Appeals on October 12, 2005. Doc. #1, Exh. B. The Court of

Appeals denied the petition on August 4, 2006. Doc. #10, Exh. A. Petitioner did not seek

review in the Arizona Supreme Court. 

On May 18, 2007, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court.

Doc. #1. Petitioner alleges four grounds for relief. On July 2, 2007, Respondents filed an

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. #10. Despite being informed of the

opportunity to file a reply, Petitioner declined to do so.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because it was not filed

within the statute of limitations period. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner does not

refute the statute of limitations argument. Because the information presented establishes that

the habeas petition is untimely, the court finds that it is barred by the statute of limitations

and recommends that the petition be denied on that basis.

A. Legal Standards

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a

statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of–

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws

of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented

from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence. 

"The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be

counted toward" the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Lott, 304 F.3d at

921. However, a state petition that is not filed within the state's required time limit is not

"properly filed" and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling. Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812 (2005). "When a post-conviction petition is untimely

under state law, 'that [is] the end of the matter' for purposes of § 2244(d)(2)." Id. Moreover,

filing a petition for post-conviction relief does not reinitiate a limitations period that ended

before the petition was filed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

The statute of limitations under AEDPA may be subject to equitable tolling. Corjasso

v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2002). However, as a general rule, equitable tolling is

not available in most cases and may be applied only when "extraordinary circumstances

beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time." Miles v. Prunty,

187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999).

B. Application

Here, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on

September 28, 1999. Petitioner had 30 days to file a petition for review to the Arizona

Supreme Court, which he did not do. See Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.19(a). Accordingly, under 28

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(A), Petitioner’s conviction became final upon the expiration of that time

period, which was October 28, 1999. Thus, absent any tolling, the statute of limitations

would have begun to run the following day. Petitioner, however, filed his first petition for

post-conviction relief on September 20, 1999. The petition therefore tolled the limitations

period for the time that it was pending. The trial court dismissed the petition on June 10,

2000, and Petitioner did not seek review. Therefore, as of June 11, 2000, there was no

petition for post-conviction relief or other application for collateral review pending to further

toll the limitations period. Consequently, the limitations period began to run on June 11,

2000 and expired one year later on June 11, 2001.

By the time Petitioner filed his second, third and fourth petitions for post-conviction

relief in 2004 and 2005, the limitations period had already expired. Those petitions,

therefore, did not result in any additional tolling of the limitations period. See Ferguson, 321

F.3d at 823. When Petitioner filed his habeas petition on May 18, 2007, nearly six years had

passed since the limitations period expired on June 11, 2001. The habeas petition is therefore

untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Petitioner does not argue that the limitations period should be calculated under a

different subsection of § 2244(d)(1) and the court finds that the allegations in the petition do

not support an alternative calculation. Further, Petitioner has not alleged that equitable

tolling of the limitations period should be applied here and the court finds no basis to do so.

C. Conclusion

For these reasons, the court finds that Petitioner's habeas petition is untimely under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The court will therefore recommend that the petition be denied

and dismissed.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

 That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 30th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01011-PGR Document 11 Filed 06/30/08 Page 6 of 6