Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00072/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00072-1/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 

Michael Stephen Walker, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00072-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 On October 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be denied based on a combination of procedural defects. Petitioner filed timely 

objections to the R&R, primarily arguing the procedural defects should be overlooked 

because he has only an eighth grade education and because of his “mental status.” (Doc. 

25 at 7). Having reviewed the issues de novo, the R&R will be adopted in full. 

 The petition contains ten claims but the R&R correctly concludes claim two is not 

cognizable on federal habeas review. Therefore, the R&R’s analysis of that claim will be 

adopted in full and the claim dismissed. As for the remaining claims, they can be broken 

into two groups: claims based on Petitioner’s 1992 case and claims based on his 2011 

case. 

 Claims three through six involve Petitioner’s 1992 case. Those claims are 

untimely and Petitioner has not carried his burden of establishing any form of tolling 

Case 2:15-cv-00072-ROS Document 26 Filed 03/31/16 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 

applies. Moreover, Petitioner has not made a credible claim of actual innocence such that 

the timeliness issue can be overcome. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1935 

(2013) (recognizing actual innocence exception to time bar). At trial, the police officers 

testified regarding Plaintiff’s actions. The fact that Plaintiff now has a witness who 

would provide a different version of events is not enough to establish actual innocence 

because, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, even if the new witness had provided the 

testimony she now offers, “a reasonable juror could have credited the police officers’ 

testimony rather than [the new witness’s].” (Doc. 24 at 18). Accordingly, the R&R’s 

analysis of claims three through six is correct and will be adopted. 

 Petitioner’s claims one and seven through ten involve his 2011 case. Claims one 

and eight were filed within one year of Petitioner’s conviction becoming final. Claims 

seven, nine, and ten, however, only appeared in an amended petition filed more than one 

year after Petitioner’s conviction became final. The R&R accurately explains the 

Supreme Court’s guidance on how to handle the “relation back” of new claims asserted in 

an amended petition. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005). Pursuant to that 

guidance, claims seven, nine, and ten are untimely because they do not arise out of the 

same “core of operative facts” as the claims in the original petition. Id. at 659. 

 That leaves only claims one and eight. The R&R is correct that Petitioner timely 

asserted these claims. However, Petitioner did not exhaust these claims in state court. 

Having failed to exhaust the claims, and with no convincing basis to excuse that failure, 

Petitioner cannot pursue his claims now. Thus, all of Petitioner’s claims fail and the 

petition must be denied in full. 

 Finally, Petitioner requests the Court hold an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate 

Judge correctly explained that, in the present circumstances where there are fatal 

procedural defects, “an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose.” (Doc. 24 at 33). 

Therefore, the request for an evidentiary hearing will be denied. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is ADOPTED IN 

Case 2:15-cv-00072-ROS Document 26 Filed 03/31/16 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 

FULL and the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 19) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable and 

because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00072-ROS Document 26 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3