Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00389/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00389-0/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

1

 Petitioner’s first trial began on September 16, 2003. Doc. #15, Exh. C at 2-3. At the

end of the trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and the trial court declared a mistrial.

Id. The second trial began on October 16, 2003. Id. At the end of the second trial, the jury

returned guilty verdicts on all counts. Id.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Artis Gipson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0389-PHX-SRB (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Artis Gipson. Doc. #1. Following a jury trial in

Maricopa County Superior Court in 20031

, Petitioner was convicted of First Degree Felony

Murder, four counts of Armed Robbery and one count of Prohibited Possession of Weapons.

Doc. #15 Exh. B. On December 5, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to natural life in prison

without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, concurrent terms of 21 years for

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 9
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 -

each of the four armed robbery convictions, and a concurrent term of 3.75 years for the

weapons conviction. Id.

Through counsel, Petitioner filed a direct appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Doc. #15, Exh. C. After the State filed an answering brief, the Court of Appeals issued a

Memorandum Decision on July 26, 2005, in which it denied Petitioner’s claims and affirmed

his convictions and sentences. Doc. #15, Exh. D, E. On October 19, 2005, Petitioner filed

a pro se Petition for Review before the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #15, Exh. F, G. The

Court summarily denied the petition on April 14, 2006. Doc. #15, Exh. H. Petitioner did not

file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

While his case was still pending on direct review, Petitioner filed a Notice of Petition

for Post-Conviction relief in the trial court in December 2003. Doc. #15, Exh. I. Petitioner

later moved to dismiss the post-conviction proceedings, which the trial court granted on

March 9, 2004. Doc. #15, Exh. J. 

Petitioner filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on April 24, 2006, shortly

after the Arizona Supreme Court denied direct review but before the time expired to file a

petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Doc. #15, Exh. K. The

trial court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on May 15, 2006. Doc. #15, Exh. L. On

October 12, 2006, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Completion in which he stated that

he could find no viable claims for relief to raise on Petitioner’s behalf in a post-conviction

petition. Doc. #15, Exh. M. Counsel further requested that the court grant Petitioner a 30-

day extension to file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Id. 

Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on November 28, 2006.

Doc. #15, Exh. N. In a Minute Entry dated March 29, 2007, the trial court denied relief on

all claims except one. Doc. #15, Exh. Q. The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the

one claim that it found to be colorable and ordered the same lawyer who filed the Notice of

Completion to represent Petitioner at the evidentiary hearing. Id. The trial court held the

evidentiary hearing on August 10, 2007, and determined at that time that Petitioner failed to

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 9
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

 The trial court did not include any dates in its minute entry. As explained above, and

as conceded by Respondents, by granting the first request for an extension, the trial court

extended the deadline to file the petition for review from September 9, 2007, to October 24,

2007. Doc. #15 at 12. Petitioner submitted his motion for a second extension on October

23, 2007, and it was filed on October 24. Thus, the basis for the trial court’s finding that the

second motion was filed after the first extension expired is unclear.

- 3 -

present a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Doc. #15, Exh. R. The court

therefore denied relief. Id.

On August 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for

Review for Post-Conviction Relief, in which he sought a 45-day extension of the deadline

for filing a petition for review. Doc. #15, Exh. T. The trial court granted the motion. Doc.

#15, Exh. U. Although the court did not identify specific dates, granting the motion extended

the deadline from September 9, 2007, to October 24, 2007. See Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.9(c)

(petition for review due within 30 days of the trial court’s decision on petition for postconviction relief); Doc. #15 at 12. Apparently on the same day he submitted the motion to

extend time, Petitioner also submitted a Motion Requesting Aug. 10, 2007, Evidentiary

Hearing Transcript. Doc. #15, Exh. BB at Exh. E. In a Minute Entry dated September 5,

2007, the trial court explained that it was forwarding the motion to Petitioner’s counsel so

he could file an appropriate written application for the transcript. Doc. #15, Exh. V.

On October 24, 2007, Petitioner filed another Motion to Extend Time to File Petition

for Review. Doc. #15, Exh.W. He argued that his lawyer had not contacted him and that he

did not yet have a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing. Id. On October 31, 2007,

the trial court issued a Minute Entry denying the motion for a further extension. Doc. #15,

Exh. X. The court explained that it had previously granted a 45-day extension, that the

previous extension had expired and that the new motion was filed after the previous

extension expired.2

 Id. The court also admonished Petitioner for filing his motion ex parte

and explained that it is not permitted to consider motions that have not been provided to the

other side. Id. 

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 9
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 -

On November 14, 2007, Petitioner submitted a pro se Petition for Review in the

Arizona Court of Appeals. Doc. #15, Exh. Y. On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition as untimely and explained that Petitioner could seek permission for an

untimely filing from the trial court. Doc. #15, Exh. AA. On November 28, 2007, Petitioner

submitted a motion to the trial court seeking leave to file an untimely petition for review.

Doc. #15, Exh. BB (December 14, 2007, shown as motion filig date). On December 14,

2007, the trial court denied the motion and again stated that the previously granted 45-day

extension had expired and that Petitioner’s new request for an extension was filed too late.

Doc. #15, Exh. CC. In the meantime, on December 10, 2007, Petitioner submitted a Motion

to Extend Time to File a Petition for Review to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Doc. # 15,

Exh. EE. After initially granting the motion, the Court of Appeals issued an Amended Order

on December 20, 2007, treating Petitioner’s request as a motion for reconsideration. Doc.

#15, Exh. GG. The Court reiterated that he could seek permission to file a delayed petition

in the trial court if he believed the late filing was not his fault. Id. The Court then denied

his motion. Id. 

On January 4, 2008, Petitioner submitted a Motion Requesting a Review of the Denial

of the Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Review. Doc. #15, Exh. HH. It appears

Petitioner sent this to both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Doc. #15 at 16. The trial

court construed it as a motion for reconsideration and denied it summarily. Doc. #15, Exh.

II. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and again explained to Petitioner that to file a

delayed petition for review, he must seek permission from the trial court. Doc. #15, Exh. JJ.

On January 18, 2008, Petitioner submitted a Petition for Review for Post-Conviction

Relief in the Arizona Supreme Court, along with a Motion to Extend the Page Limit. Doc.

#15, Exh. LL, MM. The Court granted Petitioner’s request to exceed the page limit on

January 31, 2008. Doc. #15, Exh. OO. On April 16, 2008, the Court summarily denied the

petition for review. Doc. #15, Exh. PP. 

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 9
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

 The petition was actually filed in the court on February 25, 2009, but under the

prison mailbox rule the petition is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison

authorities for mailing. See Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

 In the petition itself, Petitioner identifies grounds 1 through 11 and 13 through 17.

In the memorandum accompanying the petition, Petitioner also includes a ground 12. Doc.

#3 at 37-38.

- 5 -

On February 23, 2009, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

court.3

 Doc. #1. Petitioner alleges 17 grounds for relief.4 The individual claims are listed

in the screening order and need not be repeated here. Doc. #4 at 2-3. On May 29, 2009,

Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Limited to Affirmative

Defenses. Doc. #15. Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondents’ Answer on June 22, 2009.

Doc. #16. 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that the habeas petition should be dismissed because it was not

filed within the statute of limitations period. Alternatively, Respondents argue that all but

two of Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner responds to both of these

affirmative defenses in his reply. Because the information presented establishes that the

habeas petition was filed after the statute of limitations expired, the court finds that the

petition is barred and recommends that the petition be denied on that basis.

A. Legal Standards

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a

statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of–

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 5 of 9
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

- 6 -

of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented

from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence. 

"[T]he period of 'direct review' in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) includes the period

within which a petitioner can file a petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States

Supreme Court, whether or not the petitioner actually files such a petition." Bowen v. Roe,

188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, “[t]he time during which a properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward" the limitations period.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Lott, 304 F.3d at 921. A post-conviction petition is "clearly

pending after it is filed with a state court, but before that court grants or denies the petition."

Chavis v. Lemarque, 382 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). In Arizona, post-conviction review

is pending once a notice of post-conviction relief is filed even though the petition is not filed

until later. Isley v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004).

However, state post-conviction petitions rejected as untimely by the state court are not

"properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2), and do not toll the statute of limitations. Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S, 408, 417 (2005). "When a post-conviction petition is untimely under

state law, 'that [is] the end of the matter' for purposes of § 2244(d)(2)." Id. at 414.

The statute of limitations under AEDPA may be subject to equitable tolling. Corjasso

v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2002). However, as a general rule, equitable tolling is

not available in most cases and may be applied only when "extraordinary circumstances

beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time." Miles v. Prunty,

187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999).

B. Application

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 6 of 9
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

 What appears to be a mistaken finding by the trial court that Petitioner filed his

second motion for an extension after the first extension expired does not change the analysis.

The trial court provided other reasons for denying the motion, including the fact that it had

previously granted a 45-day extension. Moreover, Petitioner should have been prepared for

the possibility that the second motion to extend time to file a petition for review would be

denied, regardless of the reason. Instead, he waited until three weeks after the October 24

deadline to file his petition for review. 

- 7 -

Here, the Arizona Supreme Court denied direct review on April 14, 2006, and under

United States Supreme Court Rule 13, Petitioner had ninety days from that date to file a

petition for writ of certiorari. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(A), Petitioner’s

conviction became final upon the expiration of that time period, which was July 13, 2006.

Absent any tolling, the statute of limitations would have begun to run the following day.

Petitioner, however, filed a notice of post-conviction relief on April 24, 2006, thus tolling the

statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

The trial court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief on August 10, 2007,

the same day as the evidentiary hearing. The trial court subsequently granted Petitioner’s

request to extend until October 24, 2007, the time to file a petition for review in the Arizona

Court of Appeals. Petitioner, however, did not file a petition for review by October 24, and

instead sought another extension of time, which the trial court denied.5

 Petitioner then filed

his petition for review on November 14, 2007. Four days later, the Court of Appeals denied

the petition for review as untimely, finding that Petitioner failed to comply with the time limit

set forth under Arizona law. Consequently, “that [is] the end of the matter” for purposes of

statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). See Pace, 544 U.S. at 414. 

 Petitioner’s untimely petition for review in the Court of Appeals was not “properly

filed” under § 2244(d)(2). As a result, the time period after the October 24, 2007, deadline

was not tolled and the statute of limitations began to run. See Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d

1145 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Under Pace, if a state court denies a petition as untimely, none of the

time before or during the court’s consideration of that petition is statutorily tolled.”). The

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 7 of 9
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

6

 The timely petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court in January 2008 had

no tolling effect. The Court summarily denied the petition without explanation. It is

presumed that the Arizona Supreme Court’s summary denial rested on the same ground as

the last reasoned state court judgment. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991)

(where the last reasoned state court decision relies on a procedural bar, it is presumed that

a subsequent unexplained decision did not silently disregard the procedural bar and consider

the merits). Here, the last reasoned state court decision was the Court of Appeals order

denying the petition for review as untimely. As such, the statute of limitations continued to

run uninterrupted until October 24, 2008.

- 8 -

limitations period then expired one year later on October 24, 2008.6

 Petitioner filed his

habeas petition in the federal court on February 23, 2009, 122 days after the limitations

period expired. The petition is therefore untimely.

 Petitioner has not alleged in his petition or reply that equitable tolling of the

limitations period should be applied here. Based on the information presented here, the court

finds no basis to conclude that extraordinary circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control

prevented him from filing a timely petition. 

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Petitioner's habeas petition is barred by

the statute of limitations. The court will therefore recommend that the petition be denied and

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

 That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: 

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and

jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

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

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

parties shall have 14 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely 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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely 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 of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 15th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00389-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/15/10 Page 9 of 9