Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01239/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01239-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aurelio Tovar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Edward Bartos, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1239-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

 On June 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (DkT. # 1). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Glenda E. Edmonds, who issued a Report and Recommendation (DkT. # 18) recommending

that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DkT. # 1) and

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (DkT. # 17). Plaintiff filed (1) a written objection

to the Report and Recommendation (DkT. # 21) and (2) a motion for leave to file

supplemental pleading (DkT. # 22). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo and

the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which

objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no objections are filed. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en

banc).

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 23 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

DISCUSSION

The relevant authority, as set forth in the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

is as follows. Habeas Corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A one-year limitation

period applies to persons in custody pursuant to a state court judgement. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The limitation period begins to run on (1) the date on which the judgement became final by

the conclusion of direct review or (2) the expiration of the time for seeking such review,

whichever is later. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Also, “the time during which a properly filed

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgement or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007) (“AEDPA’s

one-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conclusion of the Rule 32 ofright proceeding and review of that proceeding, or until the expiration of the time for seeking

such proceeding or review.”) 

To have a meritorious federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner first must exhaust

his remedies in the state courts. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991).

To properly exhaust a federal habeas claim, the petitioner must afford the state the opportunity

to rule upon the merits of the claim by “fairly presenting” the claim to the state’s highest court

in a procedurally correct manner. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989); Rose v.

Palmateer, 395 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1144 (2005). In essence,

to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, each claim must be presented to every level of state

court before a federal court will hear the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); See Baldwin v.

Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). 

Procedural default occurs when a petitioner has not presented his claim in state court

and would be barred from doing so by the state’s procedural rules, including rules regarding

waiver and the preclusion of claims. See Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir.

1988). However, generally “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may [still] be denied

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 23 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available

in the courts of the state.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the

“Granberry standard, which holds that a federal court may deny an unexhausted petition on

the merits only when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable

federal claim.” See Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546

U.S. 1172 (2006); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. at 133 (1987).

The Court must address whether Petitioner’s habeas petition was filed within the

statute of limitations. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s habeas review was time-barred

because he did not properly his post-conviction relief petition (“PCR”) by the trial court’s

deadline. This Court does not agree. Petitioner’s notice of PCR was accepted as timely.

Petitioner was then instructed to file his PCR petition by October 10, 2006. Petitioner then

failed to file a PCR petition, and judgement became final on October 10, 2006, the date on

which his Rule 32 proceeding concluded. Summers, 481 F.3d at 711. Accordingly, the statute

of limitations regarding Petitioner’s federal habeas action allegedly began to run on October

11, 2006, and absent tolling expired on October 10, 2007. Thus, Petitioner properly tolled the

statute of limitations having timely filed the instant petition on June 25, 2007. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d).

The Court is satisfied Petitioner’s claim was not time-barred, and will now address

whether his claims were properly exhausted. Respondent argues Petitioner’s claims were not

exhausted since he failed to present any of the claims raised in the habeas corpus petition to

state appellate courts. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 729-30. Accordingly, Respondent contends that

Petitioner procedurally defaulted. Tacho, 862 F.2d at 1378. Petitioner responded by

conceding that his issues were not exhausted and moved this court to stay his petition

allowing him to exhaust his claims in state court (DkT. # 16).

However, this Court will not stay his petition because it finds that Petitioner has failed

to raise a colorable claim to relief under federal law. Cassett, 406 F.3d at 624. Petitioner lists

three separate grounds for relief: (1) fifth amendment due process of law, (2) fourteenth

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 23 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 4
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 -

amendment due process of law, and (3) the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment (DkT. # 1). However, Petitioner does not explain why he is entitled to

habeas corpus relief on any of these grounds, having only cited abstract legal principles. Id.

Furthermore, Petitioner does not state facts to explain how the relevant legal principles apply

to his case. Id. Petitioner has not presented evidence in either his Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus or in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of a

colorable federal claim. As such, this Court denies Petitioner’s unexhausted petition on its

merits. Cassett, 406 F.3d at 624. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (DkT. # 18) in its entirety as the Order of the Court, and denying

Petitioner’s Motion to Object.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is denied

as discussed above. (DkT. # 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DkT. #

1) is denied and dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File

Supplemental Pleading is denied. (DkT. # 22). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court entered judgement

accordingly.

 DATED this 29th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 23 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 4