Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00113/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00113-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Ted Johnson,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et. al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-113-PHX MHM (VAM) 

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. (Dkt. #1). This matter was referenced to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis. who

has issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends the Petition be denied as

untimely. (Dkt. #9). Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence after the Report and

Recommendation was issued and Respondents filed a reply to this motion. (Dkt. #11 & 12).

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate

judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v.

Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:06-cv-00113-MHM Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. On

September 18, 2000, Petitioner was sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court to 7.5

years in prison with credit for 358 days already served for aggravated assault. (Respondents'

Answer, Ex. C & E). On April 19, 2001, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's

conviction and sentence in a memorandum decision. (Id., Ex. K). The Arizona Supreme

Court denied a petition for review on August 7, 2001. (Id., Ex.P). The Arizona Court of

Appeals issued its order and mandate on September 5, 2001. (Id.). 

While his appeal was still pending, Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief

on September 29, 2000. (Dkt. #8 at Ex. F). On May 22, 2001, Petitioner filed another

notice of post-conviction relief and an actual petition. (Id. at Ex. N & O). The trial court

denied the petition on September 10, 2001. (Id., at Ex. Q).

On January 10, 2002, Petitioner initiated a second Rule 32 by filing a notice of postconviction relief and an accompanying petition in the trial court. (Id., Ex. S & T). The trial

court summarily denied the petition on the basis that all claims raised were precluded

because Petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal or in his first Rule 32. (Id.,

at Ex. U). The Arizona Court of Appeals denied a petition for review without comment on

March 4, 2003. (Id. at Ex. V & X). 

On December 31, 2003, Petitioner filed a "PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS" in the trial court. (Id., at Ex. Y). The trial court treated this filing as a third Rule

32 petition and summarily dismissed because all claims raised were precluded pursuant to

Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.2(a). (Id., Ex. Z). The Arizona Court of Appeals denied a petition for

review without comment on May 19, 2005. (Id., at Ex. AA & EE). The Arizona Supreme

Court also denied review on December 8, 2005. (Id., at Ex. BB & EE). 

On January 9, 2006, Petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition. (Dkt. #1). In

his petition for relief under § 2254, Petitioner alleges the following grounds: (1) violation of

the Sixth Amendment for ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not make

proper investigations in his case or have enough time to prepare a proper defense; (2) a

Case 2:06-cv-00113-MHM Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the court did not

allow into evidence a tape recording in which the victim allegedly confessed to planning on

getting Petitioner arrested; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor vouched

for her state witness' credibility.

Based upon the time line referenced above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

Petitioner's habeas corpus petition before this Court be denied as untimely pursuant to the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Specifically, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1) a federal habeas petition "must be filed within one year

of the latest of the date on which ... the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct

review or the time passed for seeking direct review..." The running of this one-year statute

of limitations is tolled during any period when "a properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending" in any state court. § 2244(d)(2). Petitioner's conviction became final on September

18, 2000. The limitations period ran for approximately 450 days following the dismissal of

Petitioner's first Rule 32 proceeding on September 10, 2001, and his filing of the federal

habeas petition on January 9, 2006. Respondents contend that 122 days of untolled time

elapsed between the denial of the first Rule 32 and the filing of the notice in the second Rule

32 on January 10, 2002. Respondents contend an additional 302 days of untolled time

elapsed between the denial of the second Rule 32 on March 4, 2003, and the filing of a state

habeas petition (treated as a third Rule 32) on December 31, 2003. Finally, Respondents

assert an additional 32 days of untolled time elapsed between the Arizona Supreme Court's

denial of review of the third Rule 32 on December 8, 2005, and the filing of Petitioner's

federal habeas petition on January 9, 2006. Lastly, Petitioner has provided no basis to justify

equitable tolling during these 450 or so days and none is apparent from the record. 

Subsequent to the Magistrate Judge's filing of the Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence on July 14, 2006, after the ten day allowable

time period for filing an objection. Respondents request that this motion be treated as an

Case 2:06-cv-00113-MHM Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

objection to the Report and Recommendation, or in the alternative, that it be dismissed as an

improper attempt to file a successive habeas petition. 

To the extent that Petitioner's motion is treated as an objection, it does not state a

colorable objection to the Report and Recommendation, despite the language in the Report

and Recommendation that "The parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service to

this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the

Court." Alternatively, Petitioner's motion is treated as an attempt to file a successive habeas

petition. Before a "second or successive" § 2254 petition may be filed in the district court,

a petitioner must first obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court

to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals will not issue an

order authorizing a successive petition unless the petition meets the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Petitioner has not presented an authorization order from the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the absence of proper authorization, this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the merits of a "second or successive" petition. See Cooper v.

Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984

(2003). Consequently, to the extent the motion is treated as an objection, it does not state a

colorable objection and therefore, is denied. In the alternative, the motion is an attempt to

file a successive habeas petition and without proper authorization by the Ninth Circuit it is

denied. 

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's habeas

corpus petition is untimely and therefore, should be denied. 

 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt.#11) are overruled;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Dkt. #9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. #1) is denied as untimely. 

Case 2:06-cv-00113-MHM Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt.

#10) is denied as moot.

DATED this 20th day of December 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00113-MHM Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 5 of 5