Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02981/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02981-5/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rogelio Benavides Gutierrez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Flannican; Terry Goddard, Attorney

General of the State of Arizona, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Rogelio Benavides Gutierrez’s motion for

extension of time and motion to stay. Dkt. ##26-27. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court will deny the motions.

I. Background.

Petitioner was convicted in state court on two counts of aggravated assault. The

charges arose from an automobile accident which occurred while Petitioner was driving a

taxi, had an epileptic seizure, and crashed into a police vehicle.

Petitioner commenced this action on September 27, 2005 by filing a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. #1. The petition alleged four grounds

for relief: (1) the grand jury proceedings were fundamentally unfair because Petitioner was

not allowed to introduce exculpatory evidence, (2) there was no reliable evidence presented

Case 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 28 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 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

1

Petitioner filed the instant motions in early August 2006. The Court received the

translations on March 21, 2007. Dkt. ##26-27.

- 2 -

during trial that Petitioner had suffered a seizure within two years before the accident,

(3) Petitioner was denied his right to a fair trial because after trial the Attorney General

decided to investigate the Ford Motor Company for possible negligent design of the police

vehicle, and (4) Petitioner was denied his right to a fair trial when he was not allowed the

opportunity to cross-examine the police officer injured in the accident on the officer’s

possible motivation in exaggerating the extent of his injuries. Id. at 5-8.

On May 26, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge David Duncan issued a report and

recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the petition. Dkt. #14. On

June 22, 2006, the Court issued an order accepting the R&R because the parties had not

timely filed objections to the R&R. Dkt. #17. In fact, on June 5, 2006, Petitioner had filed

an objection written in Spanish, but the translation was not received by the Court until July 8,

2006. Dkt. #19. On July 21, 2006, the Court issued an order reopening the case in light of

Petitioner’s timely objection to the R&R. Dkt. #20.

On October 2, 2006, the Court issued an order accepting the R&R and denying the

petition because Petitioner’s objection was nothing more than the verbatim arguments put

forth in the petition, combined with statements that did not relate to any of the four grounds

on which Petitioner sought relief. Dkt. #21 at 3-4. The Clerk subsequently entered judgment

in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner. Dkt. #22.

II. Petitioner’s Motions.1

A. Motion for Extension of Time.

Petitioner states that he did not receive the Court’s July 21, 2006 order until July 28,

2006. Dkt. #26 at 1. Petitioner requests an extension of time to respond to the order on the

ground that a response was due within ten days of the filing of the order. Id.

The Court will deny Petitioner’s request. The Court’s July 21, 2006 order did not

require a response; it merely reopened the case in light of Petitioner’s objection to the R&R.

See Dkt. #19.

Case 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 28 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

B. Motion to Stay.

Petitioner requests that the Court stay this case because the State “toyed with his

case,” he is “locked up in a tiny room,” it takes eight days for Petitioner to receive legal

correspondence sent by the Court, and his incarceration has deprived him of the legal help

he was going to receive from another inmate. Dkt. #27.

The Court will deny Petitioner’s stay request. Petitioner cites no legal authority in

support of his request. Moreover, nothing in Petitioner’s motion to stay calls into question

the Court’s final order accepting the R&R and denying the petition in this case. See

Dkt. #21.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. #26) is denied.

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. #27) is denied.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 28 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3