Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01209/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01209-1/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

Alejandro Mora Rolon, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-15-1209-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 13). Following a jury 

trial in September 2000, Petitioner was convicted of one count of molestation of a child 

and one count of sexual conduct with a minor. (Doc. 13 at 1-2). He was sentenced to 

consecutive terms of 33 years in prison on the molestation conviction and 35 years on the 

sexual conduct conviction. (Doc. 13 at 2). He raised three grounds for relief in the 

Petition, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel; prosecutorial misconduct and 

abuse of discretion by the trial court; and a violation of procedural due process. (Doc. 13 

at 4). After consideration of the issues, Judge Bade concluded that Petitioner's claims are 

time-barred because he failed to file the Petition within the one-year statute of limitations 

period. (Doc. 13 at 6). After applying statutory tolling based on post-conviction relief 

proceedings in state court, Judge Bade determined that the limitations period expired on 

May 8, 2005. (Doc. 13 at 7). Consequently, the Petition, which was not filed until June 

Case 2:15-cv-01209-DJH Document 14 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

30, 2015, was more than ten years too late. Moreover, Petitioner did not demonstrate he 

was entitled to equitable tolling or that an exception to the limitations period should 

apply. (Doc. 13 at 8-10). Accordingly, Judge Bade recommends the Petition be denied. 

(Doc. 13 at 10). 

 Judge Bade advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review." (Doc. 13 at 11) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The 

parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any 

objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the 

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo 

any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade's R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted and 

adopted as the order of this Court. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01209-DJH Document 14 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01209-DJH Document 14 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3