Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01521/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01521-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samuel Junior Leeper,

Petitioner/Appellant,

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents/Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1521-PHX-PGR 

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

In an order (doc. #13) entered on November 3, 2008, the Court adopted

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the

petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

on the ground that the petition was filed more than nine years after the expiration

of the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

The judgment of dismissal (doc. #14) was entered on November 3, 2008. The

petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal (doc. #16) on November 24, 2008.

Pending before the Court is the petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of

Appealability (doc. #17), filed November 24, 2008. In his motion, the petitioner

states in part that the Court wrongly noted in its order of dismissal that no

objections to the Report and Recommendation had been filed. A review of the

Case 2:06-cv-01521-PGR Document 18 Filed 12/15/08 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

- 2 -

record establishes that the petitioner did in fact file his Objections (doc. #15) to

the Report and Recommendation prior to the entry of the Court’s order of

dismissal. The Court was unaware of that fact when it entered its order because

the petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation was sent to the

Tucson Division of this Court, where it was received on September 22, 2008, but

it was inadvertently not forwarded by the Clerk of the Court to the Phoenix

Division of this Court for docketing until November 21, 2008.

Having now reviewed the petitioner’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court finds that the existence of the Objections changes

nothing as the Court would have made the same ruling had it been aware of the

Objections prior to the issuance of its order of dismissal. The petitioner’s

contentions that the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period is unconstitutional

under various provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions are

legally meritless given that the same type of constitutional challenges have been

repeatedly rejected by the federal courts of appeals. For example, the AEDPA’s

one-year limitations period does not unconstitutionally suspend the writ of habeas

corpus. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003-04 (9th Cir.2000); the provisions of

the AEDPA do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Seymour v. Walker, 224

F.3d 542, 560 (6th Cir.2000); Libby v. Magnusson, 177 F.3d 43, 46-47 (1st Cir.

1999); and the AEDPA generally applies to all § 2254 petitions, such as the

instant petition, filed after the AEDPA’s effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S.

320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997). To the extent that the petitioner’s

Objections go the merits of his habeas petition, those arguments cannot be

reached by the Court because the petitioner’s habeas petition was untimely filed. 

Having reviewed the petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability,

Case 2:06-cv-01521-PGR Document 18 Filed 12/15/08 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

- 3 -

the Court finds that no certificate should be issued because the petitioner has

failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of

Appealability (doc. #17) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01521-PGR Document 18 Filed 12/15/08 Page 3 of 3