Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01288/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01288-2/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 - 

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

William Kenneth Qualls, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-1288-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

and ORDER 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 William Kenneth Qualls filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in June 2013, 

and an amended petition in April 2014, challenging his convictions in Maricopa County 

Superior Court for multiple felonies arising out of his sexual contact with minors. He 

raises four related arguments in his amended petition, all of which challenge the subject 

matter jurisdiction of the prosecution and the state courts, and the validity of the Arizona 

Revised Statutes. As explained below, the Court recommends that Qualls’ petition and 

amended petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2003, at the conclusion of a five-day trial in the Maricopa County 

Superior Court, a jury found Qualls guilty of 10 felonies arising out of his sexual contact 

with minors. (Doc. 90, Ex. B) On November 3, 2003, the court sentenced Qualls to 

presumptive, consecutive sentences totaling 96 years. (Doc. 90, Ex. C) 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

Qualls timely appealed arguing that the statute of limitations had run before the 

State prosecuted him. (Doc. 90, Exs. D, E) The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed 

his convictions. (Doc. 90, Exs. E, ZZ) Qualls timely petitioned the Arizona Supreme 

Court for review. (Doc. 90, Exs. G, H) On May 24, 2005, the Arizona Supreme Court 

denied Qualls’ petition for review. (Doc. 90, Ex. G) Qualls did not file a petition for a 

writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. 

On July 27, 2005, Qualls filed a Notice of Post Conviction Relief in Maricopa 

County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. I) The Superior Court appointed counsel who, on 

September 23, 2005, notified the Court that he did not find any claims to raise in postconviction relief proceedings. (Doc. 90, Ex. J) The Superior Court set an extended 

briefing deadline so that Qualls could file a pro per Rule 32 petition. (Doc. 90, Ex. J) 

Qualls did not file any petition before the Superior Court’s December 12, 2005 deadline; 

on January 20, 2006, the Superior Court dismissed Qualls’ Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 

90, Ex. K) 

Successive Rule 32 Petitions. In March 2009 – over three years after the Superior 

Court dismissed Qualls’ Rule 32 proceeding – Qualls filed a Notice and Petition of PostConviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Exs. L, M) He argued 

that his sentence was not imposed in accordance with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 

466 (2000), and that his counsel was ineffective. The Court ruled in July 2009, first 

noting that the substance of his Apprendi claim also included Blakely v. Washington, 542 

U.S. 296 (2004), but then concluding that neither Apprendi nor Blakely applied because 

Qualls had received presumptive and not aggravated sentences. The Court further 

concluded that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be raised in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding. Accordingly, the Court denied his Notice and Petition. 

(Doc. 90, Ex. O) Qualls appealed. (Doc. 90, Exs. P, Q, R, S) In February 2011, the 

Court of Appeals denied review, and in August 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court did, 

too. (Doc. 90, Exs. T, U, V, AAA) 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

In November 2009, Qualls filed in Maricopa County Superior Court a Motion to 

Dismiss, along with other supporting documents, all of which argued that his convictions 

should be vacated because the courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 90, 

Exs. W, X) The Court treated his filing as a successive Rule 32 petition that did not raise 

any cognizable claims and dismissed it. (Doc. 90, Ex. Y) 

In July 2010, Qualls filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 

Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. Z) In this Petition, he appeared to argue 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction; violations of due process, equal protection and public 

laws; invalid law and unconstitutional statutes; fraud; kidnapping and unlawful 

imprisonment; concealment of evidence; and ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 90, 

Ex. Z) In August 2010, the Court interpreted it as an untimely Rule 32 Petition that did 

not raise any cognizable claims and dismissed it. (Doc. 90, Ex. AA) Qualls petitioned 

for review but, in April 2012, the Court of Appeals denied his petition. (Doc. 90, Exs. 

BB, CC, DD, EE, HHH) 

In April 2012, Qualls filed pleadings in the Superior Court which the Court treated 

as untimely requests for reconsideration and denied them. (Doc. 90, Exs. FF, GG, HH) 

In May 2012, Qualls filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals which was 

dismissed. (Doc. 90, Exs. II, JJ, CCC) 

In October 2012, Qualls again filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 

Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. MM) In November 2012, Qualls filed 

an amended Petition along with several additional pleadings, all of which argued lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, violation of due process, invalid law, and unconstitutional 

statutes.1

 (Doc. 90, Ex. NN) The Superior Court again treated his pleadings as a 

successive Rule 32 petition that did not raise any cognizable claims and dismissed it. 

 

1

 Later in November 2012, Qualls filed a “Notice of State’s Failure to Rule of 

Habeas Corpus Request for Order Dismissing State’s Action Request for Order” in the Court of Appeals. (Doc. 90, Ex. BB) The Court of Appeals treated his motion as a special action and, on November 21, 2012, declined to accept jurisdiction. (Id.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

(Doc. 90, Ex. NN) Qualls filed a notice of appeal and, in April 2014, the Court of 

Appeals granted review and denied relief. (Doc. 90, Exs. OO, PP, FFF) 

In December 2012, Qualls filed additional pleadings in Maricopa County Superior 

Court. (Doc. 90, Ex. III) The Court noted that if, as Qualls claimed, he was not seeking 

Rule 32 relief, then he should file a separate civil action. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court 

took no action on his pleadings. (Id.) 

In July 2013, Qualls filed a second appellate challenge to the Superior Court’s 

August 2010 dismissal. (Doc. 90, Ex. EEE) In September 2013, the Court of Appeals 

granted review and denied relief, and in January 2014, the Arizona Supreme Court denied 

his petition for review. (Doc. 90, Exs. KK, LL) 

In September 2013, Qualls filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court 

of Appeals. (Doc. 90, Exs. QQ, DDD) The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition 

because it does not have original habeas jurisdiction and because Qualls did not attempt 

to invoke appellate jurisdiction or obtain review of the trial court’s rulings. (Id.) 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On June 27, 2013, Qualls filed a Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Docs. 2, 29) The Petition was dismissed without 

prejudice while his state court proceedings finished. (Doc. 28) Subsequently, this Court 

ordered Respondents to answer; before the answer was filed, Qualls filed an Amended 

Petition along with several other documents. (Docs. 67, 73) In the following months, 

Qualls filed several additional motions and the Court has denied many of them. (Doc. 

120) 

Similar to his successive Rule 32 pleadings in Superior Court, Qualls’ Petition, 

Amended Petition, and his other filings in this Court all argue that the Superior Court did 

not have subject matter jurisdiction, the Arizona Revised Statutes were invalid because 

they were enacted in violation of the Arizona Constitution, the state courts failed to 

satisfy his demands for proof of subject matter jurisdiction, the county attorney did not 

have jurisdiction to prosecute him, and his due process rights were violated. (Doc. 2 at 6, 

33; Doc. 73-1 at 126, 134) 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

Respondents contend that Qualls’ Petition is untimely and that he is not entitled to 

equitable tolling. (Doc. 90 at 9) The Court agrees and recommends that the Petition be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Qualls’ Petition for Habeas Relief is Untimely. 

 A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction is 

required to file the petition within one year of “the date on which the judgment became 

final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during 

the time in which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

Qualls’ conviction became final on August 22, 2005, when the time period for 

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

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012). However, on July 27, 

2005, Qualls timely filed a Notice for post-conviction relief which initiated a tolling 

period. Isley v. Arizona Dep’t. of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(tolling starts on the date that a Notice is filed under Rule 32 for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(2)). But Qualls never filed a petition and the Maricopa County Superior Court 

dismissed his incomplete post-conviction relief proceedings on January 20, 2006. At this 

point, the tolling period ended and his one year timeframe for filing a habeas petition in 

this Court began. Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (a “properly 

filed” first PCR notice tolled AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations until it was 

summarily dismissed because no petition had been filed). 

Between January 20, 2006 and January 20, 2007, Qualls did not have any 

proceedings pending in the State courts and he did not file anything in this Court. 

Accordingly, his one year timeframe expired; once expired, it could not be revived by 

subsequent filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005) (no AEDPA tolling 

from untimely state post conviction petitions); Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

(9th Cir. 2003) (“section 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations period 

that has ended before the state petition was filed”). 

Thus, Qualls’ petition and amended petition are untimely unless he can show that 

he is entitled to equitable tolling. To make such a showing, Qualls must demonstrate 

both that he pursued his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance 

prevented him from filing his petitions. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) 

(quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). In his multiple pleadings and 

motions, Qualls never attempts to explain why he failed to file any petition for postconviction relief in 2005, why he waited over three years between filing his first and 

second post-conviction petitions, or why he waited seven years between the dismissal of 

his first post-conviction petition and the filing of his habeas petition in this Court. 

Instead, Qualls argues that his habeas claim is based on subject matter jurisdiction 

and that this challenge can be brought at any time. (Docs. 2, 73-1) This is not enough to 

establish equitable tolling in a collateral habeas proceeding. Crihalmean v. Ryan, 2013 

WL 5524509, at *13 (D. Ariz. Oct. 4, 2013) (“It is true that a claim of a lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction can generally be asserted at any time during the pendency of a matter. 

. . . Here, however, Petitioner’s criminal case is no longer pending, and this collateral 

habeas proceeding is not part of that prosecution. Petitioner cites no authority extending 

the proposition to collateral proceedings, nor to using it to avoid [a] limitations bar to 

those collateral proceedings. The [Court] knows of none.”) (citation omitted) 

Accordingly, Qualls is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that William Kenneth Qualls’ petition 

and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions filed by Petitioner 

William Kenneth Qualls be denied as moot: 

 Motions for Discovery (Docs. 118, 124); 

 Motion for Status (Doc. 131); 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

 Motion to Present Evidence (Doc. 132). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 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 parties shall have fourteen 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); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to 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 timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated this 1st day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01288-JAT Document 133 Filed 04/01/15 Page 7 of 7