Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00687/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00687-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry AMMONS,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Dora SCHRIRO, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0687-PHX-SMM (ECV)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Barry Ammons' Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. [Doc. No. 1] On May 27, 2005, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss filed a Report and

Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner's Petition should be denied and dismissed

with prejudice. [Doc. No. 21] Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file

Objections on July 27, 2005. [Doc. No. 24] This Court granted that Motion on August 1, 2005.

[Doc. No. 25] Petitioner filed Objections on August 24, 2005. [Doc. No. 26] After considering

Judge Aspey's Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections

thereto, the Court now issues the following rulings. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal analysis in the

Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review

the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which

Case 2:04-cv-00687-SMM Document 27 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no Objections are filed. See id.;

see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to file objections relieves

the district court of conducting de novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, with the following

addition.

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner's

arguments but one. Petitioner has put forth a claim of "actual innocence." That is, Petitioner

argues that even if the statute of limitations has passed, he is "actually innocent" and his

constitutional challenges should go forward. In Schlup v. Delo, the United States Supreme

Court held that a petitioner "must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror

would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to prevail on a claim of "actual

innocence." 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). Petitioner in this case has failed to meet that burden and

therefore the Court need not reach a conclusion on whether "actual innocence" is an exception

to the statute of limitations for petitions for writs of habeas corpus. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Edward C. Voss [Doc. No. 21] with the above addition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

[Doc. No. 1] is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 5 day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00687-SMM Document 27 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2