Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00672/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00672-1/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

John Richard Brinsfield, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-cv-00672-PHX-ROS (ECV)

ORDER ADOPTING THE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss filed a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 24) recommending denial of Petitioner’s pro se petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed an objection to the report. (Doc. 29.) For the reasons set

forth herein, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault in 1993 and second degree murder in

1997. (Doc. 24 at 1.) The 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) statute of limitations period for a

habeas petition regarding the 1993 conviction expired, absent any equitable tolling, on

February 22, 1999; the statute of limitations for the 1997 conviction expired on January 29,

2004. (Id. at 4, 5.) On March 23, 2007, Petitioner filed in this court for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus. (Id. at 3.) The magistrate recommended that the petition be denied as untimely

because the statute of limitations had expired for both convictions. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner in

Case 2:07-cv-00672-ROS Document 46 Filed 07/22/09 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 -

his objection argues – on grounds not presented below – that he is entitled to tolling of the

statute of limitations.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A “district judge may refer . . . petitions for writ of habeas corpus to a magistrate, who

shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend dispositions.” Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 141 (1985); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Any party may file objections to the

magistrate's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). Portions of the report or

specified findings or recommendations which are objected to are determined de novo, and

the reviewing judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may at its

discretion consider new evidence not presented to the magistrate. United States v. Howell,

231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir.2000).

ANALYSIS

 This court has chosen to consider new evidence concerning incorrect advice that

Petitioner allegedly received sometime after November, 1997 from an unidentified person

fraudulently representing themself as a paralegal. (Doc. 29 at 2-3.) Petitioner does not

specify precisely when this occurred, but introduces evidence that shows it occurred before

the end of 1998. (See Doc. 44 ast 6, Doc. 26 Ex. A at 1.) Petitioner alleges the stateprovided “fake paralegal” told Petitioner that there was no statute of limitations on habeas

petitions. (Doc. 29 at 2-3.) Petitioner argues that this providing of incorrect information

justifies equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for habeas petitions. (Id.)

Respondents argue that Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) makes equitable

tolling unavailable to habeas petitioners. (Doc. 35 at 2.) Since Respondents’ brief, that

argument has been foreclosed by Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 10011 n.2

(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that equitable tolling is available to habeas petitioners).

However, a recent 9th Circuit decision, on facts nearly identical to those here, makes

it clear that receiving incorrect advice concerning the statute of limitations from a paralegal

“does not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances” that might equitably toll the statute

Case 2:07-cv-00672-ROS Document 46 Filed 07/22/09 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

1

This is a non-precedential unpublished decision, cited under 9th Cir. R. 36-3(b).

2

Even if equitable tolling were available for that reason, it would not be sufficient to

bridge the years of unexplained delay (eight years since the limitation period expired on one

conviction, and three years since the expiration on the other) in Petitioner’s filing.

- 3 -

of limitations for a habeas petition, because incorrect information from a paralegal or

purported paralegal does not “actually ma[k]e it impossible for [a petitioner] to file on time.”

Alexander v. Schriro, 312 Fed.Appx. 972, 975, 2009 WL 464233 at 2 (9th Cir. Ariz., 2009)1

.

Therefore, Petitioner cannot be granted equitable tolling on that ground.2

Petitioner vaguely alleges that he might not have had access to legal material

sufficient to inform him of the statute of limitations. (Doc. 29 at 3.) However, Respondents

have provided thorough documentation showing that Petitioner did have access to such

materials. (Doc. 35.) Petitioner does not argue this point in his reply, (Doc. 44.) and as a

result this objection is deemed waived.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Judge Voss (Doc.

24) is ADOPTED.

FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Strike Nonparty’s

Unauthorized Correspondence (Doc. 40) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00672-ROS Document 46 Filed 07/22/09 Page 3 of 3