Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002-2/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

Marzet Farris, III,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Ryan Thornell, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-23-08002-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Generally, there is a one-year statute of limitations for defendants in state court cases 

to file a petition for habeas relief in federal court. (Doc. 39 at 5-6 (citing the Anti-Terrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)). On October 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge 

to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending that the Petition in this case be dismissed because it is barred by AEDPA’s 

statute of limitations. On November 17, 2023, this Court issued an Order extending 

Petitioner’s time to file objections to the R&R to January 5, 2024.

On November 20, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery which he claims he 

needs to file his objections. (Doc. 42). Respondents oppose discovery. (Doc. 43).

In their answer, Respondents did not raise statute of limitations as a basis to dismiss 

the Petition. Nonetheless, the R&R addressed it as follows:

In Melville v. Shinn, 68 F.4th 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023), the 

Ninth Circuit held that a post-conviction application remains pending until 

the expiration of time allowed to seek further review, even if such review is 

not sought. Although the trial court’s order was dated October 29, 2020, it 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 44 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 5
- 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

was not entered by filing until October 30, 2020. (Exh. KK at 1.) Under Ariz. 

R. Crim. Proc. 32.16(a)(1), Petitioner had 30 days “after the entry of the trial 

court’s final decision” or until November 30, 2020, to file his petition for 

review with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Under Melville, tolling continued 

at least through that date.

For purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A), an application for state collateral 

review is also “pending” during “the time between a lower state court's 

decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court.” Carey v. 

Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 217 (2002). However, such appeal must be timely. 

The Arizona courts never explicitly addressed the timeliness of Petitioner’s 

PCR petition for review, but addressed only its merits. But that is not enough 

to show that the petition was timely. Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 197 

(2006) (“denying a petition ‘on the merits’ does not automatically indicate 

that the petition was timely filed”).

In the absence of a clear indication by the state courts that a particular 

request for review was timely or untimely, the habeas court must itself 

determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness. 

Evans, 546 U.S. at 198. Here, Petitioner’s petition for review (Exh. LL) was 

filed December 2, 2020, plainly after the November 30, 2020 deadline. 

For purposes of calculating tolling under § 2244(d), the federal 

prisoner “mailbox rule” applies. Under this rule, a prisoner’s state filings are 

deemed “filed” for purposes of tolling when they are delivered to prison 

officials for mailing. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000). 

But this does not necessarily render the state filing “timely” for state law 

purposes. However, the “mailbox rule” applies to determining whether an 

Arizona prisoner’s state filings were timely [because] Arizona has applied 

the rule to a variety of its state proceedings, including PCR proceedings. 

[citations omitted]. 

Here, however, there is no evidence of record that Petitioner’s petition 

for review was delivered to prison officials for mailing on or before 

November 30, 2020. Petitioner’s petition for review’ was signed on 

November 30, 2020 and its Certificate of Service indicates it was 

“mailed...via United States Postal Service” on that date (Exh. LL at 21 and 

Cert. of Service). Cf. State v. Goracke, 210 Ariz. 20, 23, 106 P.3d 1035, 1038 

(App. 2005) (applying prison mailbox rule where mailing certificate asserted 

“I have placed this Petition for Review in the institutional mail at Menard 

Correctional Center”). 

Accordingly, the undersigned must conclude that Petitioner’s petition 

for review to the Arizona Court of Appeals was untimely....

(Doc. 39 at 7-9).

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 44 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 5
- 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

This Court’s understanding of the statute of limitation issue in this case is that if 

Petitioner’s petition for the review with the Arizona Court of Appeals was timely for 

purposes of statutory tolling, then his tolling would run until January 24, 2022, making his 

January 4, 2023, Petition in this case within the one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 39 

at 4). However, if Petitioner’s petition for review with the Arizona Court of Appeals was 

not timely filed, then nothing filed thereafter was properly filed or pending before the 

Arizona courts. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run December 1, 2020, and 

ended November 30, 2021; making the January 4, 2023 petition in this case untimely. 

(Doc. 39 at 9).

It is undisputed that for the petition for review to have been timely, it had to be 

“filed” by November 30, 2020. It is undisputed that it was received by the Arizona Court 

of Appeals on December 2, 2020. It is undisputed that the Arizona courts follow the prison 

mailbox rule meaning that something going to the court is deemed to be “filed” the day it 

is handed to the prison officials for mailing. It is undisputed that Petitioner was in prison 

at the time of mailing. It is undisputed that Petitioner dated his petition for review 

November 30, 2020. Thus, for the Court of Appeals to receive it by December 2, 2020, it 

must have been mailed on or before December 2, 2020.

The R&R has concluded that record does not show that Petitioner handed his 

petition for review to the prison officials for mailing by November 30, 2020. Given the 

undisputed facts, it would appear the other options are that Petitioner actually handed his 

petition for review to the prison officials for mailing on December 1, 2020, not the day he 

said he mailed it in the mailing certificate (November 30, 2020). Or that when Petitioner 

mailed his petition for review on November 30, 2020, he mailed it directly with the post 

office, not through the prison. A third possibility would be that the petition for review was 

mailed and received the same day (December 2, 2020). 

To try to “prove” when he mailed his petition for review to the Arizona Court of 

Appeals, Petitioner has now filed a discovery motion seeking legal mail logs from the 

prison from October 29, 2020 to December 3, 2020. (Doc. 42 at 2). Respondents oppose 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 44 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 5
- 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

the motion because generally discovery is not permitted in habeas cases, and alternatively 

because the Petition in this case can be denied on the merits. (Doc. 43). Notably 

Respondents did not in their answer, or now, argue the Petition in this case is untimely.

Generally, Respondents are correct that discovery is rarely appropriate in habeas 

cases. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the Petition is timely even though the record does 

not definitively establish this fact. Thus, the Court is hesitant to accept the R&R and 

dismiss the Petition as untimely.

Turning to the evidence of record, the only evidence of when the petition for review 

was mailed to the Arizona Court of Appeals is the mailing certificate. The mailing 

certificate indicates it was mailed on November 30, 2020. (Exh. LL). There is no other 

evidence of record on this issue from which the Court could find an alternative mailing 

date. Thus, the Court accepts that the petition for review was mailed on November 30, 

2020. Given this finding, the Court will deny Petitioner’s November 20, 2023, motion for 

discovery of the prison legal mail logs (Doc. 42) as unnecessary.

The next question is “how” it was mailed. The options appear to be by giving it to 

the prison officials for mailing or giving it to the post office directly. As indicated above, 

if it was given to the prison officials for mailing, under the prison mailbox rule, November 

30, 2020, would then also be the “filing” date. The mailing certificate is silent on this point 

other that indicating it was mailed via the United States Postal Service. While the Court is 

skeptical in the prison context there is a way for the inmate to mail items directly with the 

post office, the Court will nonetheless require Petitioner to supplement the record and 

advise the Court of “how” he mailed his petition for review. See generally Whalem/Hunt 

v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (allowing the district court to take 

evidence in determining whether the statute of limitation under AEDPA is expired). This 

supplement is due with Petitioner’s objection by January 5, 2024.

Several other motions are pending: 1) Petitioner’s motion to stay the case upon a 

finding of procedural default (Doc. 17); 2) Petitioner’s May 1, 2023 motion for discovery 

(Doc. 20); Petitioner’s motion to expand the record (Doc. 21); Petitioner’s motion for 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 44 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

evidentiary hearing (Doc. 22); and Petitioner’s motion to supplement the record (Doc. 35). 

These motions were all filed before the R&R was issued. The R&R recommends that all 

these motions be denied by this Court. (Doc. 39 at 15).

These motions are procedurally improper. Whatever Petitioner’s claims, such 

claims needed to be addressed in his Petition; and whatever Petitioner’s responses to the 

state’s answer, those responses needed to be addressed in the reply. Collateral motion 

practice is not the procedurally correct way to attempt to expand the record. Accordingly, 

all these motions will be denied.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the pending motions (Docs. 17, 20, 21, 22, 35, and 42) are 

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s supplement and objections to the 

R&R (Doc. 30) are due by January 5, 2024.

Dated this 5th day of December, 2023.

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 44 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 5