Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00138/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00138-0/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

Eric Matthew Anderson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-0138-PCT-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Eric Matthew Anderson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions in Yavapai County Superior Court for sexual

assault, aggravated assault and kidnapping, and the imposition of concurrent 28 year prison

terms and a consecutive life term. In his petition, he contends that his sentences are

unconstitutional. Respondents argue that Anderson's petition is untimely. The Court agrees

and recommends that it be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Following his 1992 convictions, Anderson sought direct review; the Arizona Court

of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences on May 18, 1993 (Doc. #9, Exh B). Over

ten years later, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on November 13, 2003 (Id.,

Exh C). Counsel filed a Notice of PCR Review on May 10, 2004, indicating that he had

reviewed the file and was unable to find any colorable claim, requesting that Anderson be

given an extension to file a pro se petition; the trial court granted counsel's request (Id., Exh

E). On July 15 and July 28, 2004, Anderson filed a pro se amended petition, raising a

Case 3:06-cv-00138-JAT Document 13 Filed 05/09/06 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 -

Blakely claim (Id., Exh G, H). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition on September

21, 2004, finding that Blakely was not retroactively applicable to Anderson's case on

collateral review (Id., Exh I). Anderson filed a petition for review on October 13, 2004; the

court of appeals denied review on August 10, 2005 (Id., Exh J, K ). He filed his federal

petition on December 19, 2005 (Doc. #1).

Anderson was required to file his federal petition within 1 year of the later of two

occurrences: the date the judgment of conviction became final in state court, or the effective

date of the AEDPA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.

2001). Anderson's case became final on direct review on June 17, 1993, the date upon which

the time for filing a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court expired. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in this case the deadline was April 24, 1997, one year from the

effective date of the AEDPA.

However, "the time during which a properly filed application for post-conviction or

other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not

be counted toward any period of limitation." See 2244(d)(2). A review of the Yavapai

County Superior Court docket indicates that Anderson had nothing pending in state court

from August 16, 1994, until he filed his petition for post-conviction relief on November 13,

2003 - over six years past the one-year limitations period. Once the limitations period lapsed,

Anderson could not "restart" the period by filing a state court action that would have tolled

the limitations period, had it been timely filed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820,

823 (9th Cir. 2003).

In addition, Anderson is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has not shown

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control which made it impossible for him to timely

file. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000). Anderson's inaction for more than

10 years cannot be excused by his reliance on counsel's opinion in a letter written to him in

1993, following the conclusion of direct review, that "there is no point in pursuing the matter

any further as I believe your chances for success are nil" (Doc. #12, App. A).

Case 3:06-cv-00138-JAT Document 13 Filed 05/09/06 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Eric Matthew Anderson's petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. #1).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00138-JAT Document 13 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3