Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-02019/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-02019-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

REYNALDO TORRIENTE, )

) No. CIV 00-2019 PHX RCB 

Petitioner, ) 

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

TERRY L. STEWART, et al., )

)

Respondents. ) )

On July 22, 2005, Petitioner Reynaldo Torriente filed a

document entitled "Question About a Case That Was Terminate [sic]

and Still "Under Advisement." (doc. 82). Thereafter, on August 11,

2005, Petitioner filed a document styled as "Question About the

Counsel of Record and the 'FRAP 3' of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure For the Ninth Circuit." (doc. 84). The Court

construes both of these documents to be motions for clarification,

as, in each of his filings, Petitioner expresses confusion about

the Court's final ruling in its order issued on February 24, 2004.

On October 17, 2000, Torriente filed for federal habeas

relief, Pet. (doc. 1), and amended his petition on January 22, 

Case 2:00-cv-02019-RCB Document 85 Filed 10/06/05 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 -

2001, Am. Pet. (doc. 7). On January 7, 2003, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising that

Torriente's petition be denied (doc. 67). Torriente filed timely

objections to the R&R. Objs. (doc. 69). 

On February 24, 2004, the Court issued an order denying

Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and

dismissing the action. Order (doc. 74). In its order, the Court

rejected the conclusion of the R&R that Torriente's habeas petition

must be denied because it did not comply with the statute of

limitations. Id. at 5. However, the Court concluded that

Torriente's claims were procedurally defaulted, barring the Court's

review of such claims. Id. at 7. Thus, in its Order on February 24,

2004, the Court denied Petitioner's Amended Petition for Habeas

Corpus and directed the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor

of Respondents and to terminate the case. Order (doc. 7).

Accordingly, this case was terminated on February 24, 2004.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motions for clarification

(docs. 82 & 84) are GRANTED.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:00-cv-02019-RCB Document 85 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2