Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03115/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03115-1/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

Earl Tyrone Pollard, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-3115-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On September 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be denied. (Doc. 22) On September 20, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to

the R&R. (Doc. 23) For the following reasons, the R&R will be adopted and the Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied.

After a Magistrate Judge submits a R&R, the parties have ten days in which to file any

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court is required to "make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made." Id. After evaluating the Magistrate Judge's R&R, as well as the

objections filed by either party, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. 

Case 2:05-cv-03115-ROS Document 24 Filed 12/06/06 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 -

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that the amended petition was

not timely filed. Pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

there is a one-year limitations period for state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As recounted in the R&R, Petitioner's convictions became final on

April 23, 2002 but his petition was not filed until October 5, 2005 (the amended petition was

filed November 25, 2005). Thus, the amended petition is untimely absent either statutory or

equitable tolling. In his objections to the R&R, Plaintiff apparently believes he is entitled

to both forms of tolling. 

Statutory tolling applies while an "application for State post-conviction" relief is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Petitioner asserts that he never received notice of the

disposition of certain post-conviction motions filed in the trial court in 2001, meaning the

limitations period never began to run. But the record shows Petitioner was aware that his

conviction had been affirmed by the appellate court in 2003 and that Petitioner filed

subsequent post-conviction motions in the trial court. No applications for post-conviction

relief were pending for well over a year after Petitioner's conviction became final. Statutory

tolling does not apply.

Equitable tolling applies when the delay in filing the petition for writ of habeas corpus

was due to factors other than a petitioner's lack of diligence. Petitioner claims he did not

have adequate access to legal assistance or a law library. The Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that such allegations are insufficient to establish equitable tolling.

Neither statutory nor equitable tolling applies in this case. Thus, the Magistrate's

recommendation that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as untimely will be

adopted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED and this case

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 2:05-cv-03115-ROS Document 24 Filed 12/06/06 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 -

DATED this 6th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03115-ROS Document 24 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3