Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00244-1/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 

Lionel Valenzuela Pereida,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00244-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Lionel Valenzuela Pereida’s Petition Under 

§ 2254 (Doc. 1) and the June 11, 2014 Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 15) 

from Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro, recommending that this Court dismiss the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner timely filed his objection (Doc. 16) to the 

R & R on June 19, 2014. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s June 

11, 2014 R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

I. Background 

 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R & R (Doc. 15). This Court fully incorporates by reference 

the “Factual and Procedural Background” section of the R & R into this Order. 

II. Discussion 

 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 

Case 4:13-cv-00244-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/07/14 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 

may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Where the parties 

object to an R & R “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of 

those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The Court will not disturb a magistrate 

judge’s order unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are 

contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is 

entitled to great deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 

969 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 In his R & R, Magistrate Judge Ferraro finds that Pereida’s Petition is statutorily 

time-barred and that equitable tolling does not apply. Pereida objects to the R & R 

because he believes that it is argumentative and makes conclusory statements. Pereida 

argues that Judge Ferraro’s statements regarding the timing of the filing of his PCR 

petition, conclusion of his PCR proceeding, and filing of this federal petition are 

unsupported. The Court, however, finds that Judge Ferraro’s findings are well supported 

by the facts of this case. Based on the record before the Court, Pereida did not file his 

Petition in this Court until April 10, 2014– 609 days after the limitations period resumed 

in August 10, 2011. Even without including the 35 days of time that expired before 

Petitioner filed his PCR petition, Pereida filed his Petition with this Court well over the 

one-year statute of limitations period prescribed under the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

 Pereida also objects to Judge Ferraro’s finding that the letter from the Ninth 

Circuit does not excuse the one-year statute of limitations. Even if the language in the 

letter could be construed to permit tolling, “the letter was received from the Ninth Circuit 

more than four months after the one-year statute of limitations had run.” (Doc. 15, p. 4). 

Judge Ferraro also concluded that Pereida failed to establish that his attorney acted 

negligently or that Pereida lacked access to the AEDPA material. This Court agrees. 

Case 4:13-cv-00244-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/07/14 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 

Pereida provides no evidence that his attorney was negligent in a manner that would 

warrant equitable tolling. Furthermore, as Judge Ferraro correctly states, “the 

‘inadequacy’ of the prison law library did not prevent Pereida from filing his Petition on 

time.” (Doc. 15, p. 6). Pereida bears the burden of proving that the statute of limitations 

should be equitably tolled, Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010), and he has 

failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 (1) Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

15) is accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. 

 (2) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this 

action is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk should enter judgment and close this 

case. 

 (3) Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event the Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the court’s conclusions and ruling 

debatable. 

 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-00244-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 3