Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00235/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00235-1/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

Gilbert Aguilas Ocho Buelna, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro and the State of Arizona

Attorney General, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-00235-PHX-EHC

ORDER

On January 31, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 5, 2007, Respondents filed an Answer (Dkt.

17). On November 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Reply (titled “Response to Answer to

Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus”) (Dkt. 18). Magistrate Judge Aspey issued a

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19) recommending that Petitioner’s writ be denied

because it is barred by applicable one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner filed an

Objection (titled “Motion for Reconsideration of Report and Recommendation”) (Dkt.

20).

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“a

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ...,

to which objection is made.”); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the

Case 2:07-cv-00235-EHC Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 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 -

subject of an objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003),

citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Petitioner contends in his objections that the prison law library provided him with

an old habeas form that contained an incorrect address for this Court. He further contends

that he turned over his petition to prison authorities for mailing on January 18, 2007, but

that it was returned because of the incorrect address. Petitioner then re-mailed his

petition to the correct address on January 31, 2007. Petitioner focuses on a single

sentence in the Report and Recommendation, which he contends establishes January 26,

2007, as the date by which he could have still timely filed this petition. In this sentence,

the Magistrate Judge stated:

Assuming the statute of limitations began to run on January 26, 2006, it expired on

January 26, 2007 and, accordingly, Petitioner’s federal habeas petition filed

January 31, 2007, is too late even using the most generous calculation.

(Dkt. 19, p. 6). Petitioner now contends that the Court should deem his petition timely

filed on January 18, 2007, when he first attempted to mail it to the incorrect address. 

Attached to Petitioner’s objections are two documents: (1) an informational form about

filing a § 2254 petition, which contains this Court’s old address at 230 North First

Avenue; and (2) an Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Request for Withdrawal

dated January 18, 2007, requesting “Legal mail Postage.” (Dkt. 20). Based on the

evidence presented, the Court cannot determine whether Petitioner did in fact make an

attempt to mail his petition on January 18, 2007. Such a determination would not,

however, change the outcome of this case. 

Petitioner has not objected to the other portions of the Report and

Recommendation that present substantially more daunting timeliness issues for Petitioner. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that:

Irregardless of when Petitioner’s first action for post-conviction relief became final

and the one-year statute of limitations on Petitioner’s federal habeas action began

to run at the termination of that action, more than 365 days of un-tolled time

passed between the termination of Petitioner’s second action for post-conviction

relief and the date that he filed his federal habeas petition. 

Case 2:07-cv-00235-EHC Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 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 -

(Dkt. 19, p. 5). The Arizona Court of Appeal denied review of Petitioner’s second action

for post-conviction relief on May 2, 2000, and Petitioner did not file a third action until

April 17, 2003. During this three year period, Petitioner did not have any action for state

post-conviction relief pending in the state courts, which would have tolled the one-year

statute of limitations. When the Magistrate Judge referenced January 26, 2007, as a

possible date that the statute of limitations ran, he did so to illustrate just how untimely

Petitioner’s action would be even if the Court were to somehow find that the filing of

Petitioner’s third action for state post-conviction relief on April 17, 2003, restarted the

already-expired statute of limitations. The filing of Petitioner’s third action for state postconviction relief did not restart the federal statute of limitations. See Ferguson v.

Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). That part of the Report and

Recommendation, which assumed arguendo that the statute had been restarted, was

offered only for illustration and does not establish January 26, 2007, as the date upon

which Petitioner’s claim became untimely.

 Thus, having reviewed de novo the record in this matter pertaining to Petitioner’s

objections, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge regarding disposition. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. 19).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00235-EHC Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 3