Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01783/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01783-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matthew Steven Gray,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-01783-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

Petitioner Matthew Steven Gray filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

on March 18, 2019 challenging a state court conviction that became final on or about 

July 9, 2010. The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on 

November 21, 2019 finding the Petition untimely and not subject to the actual 

innocence exception to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s 

(AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that 

the Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability be 

denied. Petitioner filed timely Objections on November 27, 2019 to which 

Respondents responded.

In his Objections, Petitioner does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s recitation 

of the pertinent dates of his state court conviction, post-conviction relief petition, its 

denial and the dismissal of his petition for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals

as untimely. He does not dispute that the one-year statute of limitations began to 

Case 2:19-cv-01783-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/10/20 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

run on June 10, 2009. Petitioner appears to argue that his April 18, 2018 state court 

filing of his Motion Requesting Relief from an ‘Unlawful Sentence’ Imposed in an 

‘Unlawful Manner with Extraordinary Circumstances Existing’ Requiring an 

Evidentiary Hearing restarted the one-year statute of limitations. To the extent that 

is Petitioner’s argument he is wrong. As the Magistrate Judge explained subsequent 

state court collateral review petitions do not restart the statute of limitations.

Petitioner also appears to argue that his April 18, 2018 state court filing 

suffices for a showing of actual innocence that provides an equitable exception to 

AEDPA’s statute of limitations. But Petitioner fails to explain how his state court 

motion addressing an alleged unlawful sentence establishes actual innocence of the 

charges to which he pled guilty in 2008. The Court has reviewed that state court 

motion (Doc 12-2 p. 22-66) and nothing therein establishes or even attempts to 

establish factual innocence of the crimes of conviction.

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

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 14)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is justified by a plain procedural 

bar.

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 2:19-cv-01783-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/10/20 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 10th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01783-SRB Document 17 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 3