Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02307/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02307-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Allen Webb,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02307-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

Petitioner, Richard Allen Webb filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

on April 9, 2019. It was signed on April 3, 2019. His state court conviction on which 

his Petition is based became final on April 9, 2014. The Respondents filed a limited 

Answer to the Petition arguing that the Petition should be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice because it is “untimely, noncognizable, and procedurally defaulted.” (Doc. 

7, Answer at 1.) The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on 

January 10, 2020 recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice because it is untimely, there was no statutory tolling and Petitioner failed 

to make any showing of extraordinary circumstances necessary for equitable tolling. 

The Report and Recommendation also recommended the denial of a Certificate of 

Appealability. Petitioner filed timely written Objections to which a Response was 

filed.

Petitioner’s Objections primarily argue the merits of his habeas petition and 

never specifically address the untimeliness of his petition. It appears to the Court 

Case 2:19-cv-02307-SRB Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 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

that Petitioner is arguing that his Fourth Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed in 

state court was based on newly discovered evidence. The claimed newly discovered 

evidence is the existence of a state statute that Petitioner says the state withheld from 

him. The state court dismissed this petition as untimely and successive. The Petition 

before this Court argues as its sole ground for relief this alleged concealment of the 

law by the state and his own attorney.

As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted in his Report and Recommendation, 

an untimely state court Petition for Post-Conviction Relief does not result in 

statutory tolling of the limitations period and the untimely Petition did not restart the 

limitations period that had already run. Petitioner’s Objections make no argument 

challenging the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. The Magistrate Judge

also explained why equitable tolling is unavailable because the facts of Petitioner’s 

claim were known to him from the time he was sentenced and his new legal argument 

does not warrant equitable tolling. Petitioner’s Objections also fail to address this 

conclusion. Petitioner’s only argument is that a “rule of lenity” should apply to him 

due to his ignorance of the law. But as pointed out by the Magistrate Judge in his 

Report and Recommendation, lack of legal sophistication is not an extraordinary 

circumstance warranting equitable tolling.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing Petitioner’s untimely

Petition for Writ of Habeas with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the dismissal of the Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable.

Case 2:19-cv-02307-SRB Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment 

accordingly.

Dated this 18th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02307-SRB Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3