Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02028/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02028-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Michael Perea, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2028-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On March 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Frank Perea’s Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be denied. (Doc. 14). For the reasons below, the R&R will be adopted. 

BACKGROUND

The R&R sets forth the background of this case, to which neither party objected, so

the Court adopts it as an accurate recital. In brief, Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of

attempted exploitation of a minor. He was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to

lifetime probation on Count 1, and five years imprisonment for Count 2. This judgment

became final on October 2, 2006. Petitioner filed his original petition on October 17, 2007,

and an amended petition on November 2, 2007. 

Petitioner alleged two grounds for habeas relief: (1) actual innocence based up an

Arizona Court of Appeals case that clarified the sexual exploitation statutes, and (2)

Case 2:07-cv-02028-ROS Document 17 Filed 05/12/08 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

- 2 -

ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to raise a constitutional challenge to the

sexual exploitation statute. 

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the amended petition be dismissed for

untimeliness. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s petition was fifteen

days late under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. And, although the petition was late

because Petitioner relied upon a courthouse address provided by the Federal Public

Defender’s Office, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s mistake did not warrant

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Petitioner timely filed an objection.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because objections

were filed, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations de novo.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). 

ANALYSIS

After a de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations. The Ninth Circuit has held that AEDPA’s statute of limitations period is

subject to equitable tolling. United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.Ct.

2360 (2007), did not overturn this holding. See Coker v. Quarterman, No. 05-10020, 2008

WL 724042, at *5 n.1 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008) (expressly holding that equitable tolling of

AEDPA’s statute of limitations survives Bowles); Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149, 153-53 (2d

Cir. 2008) (same); cf. Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1054-57 (9th Cir. 2008) (conducting

equitable tolling analysis of habeas claim after Bowles); Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230,

1232-33 (10th Cir. 2007) (same). 

A petitioner seeking equitable tolling must establish two elements: “‘(1) that he has

been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his

way’ and prevented timely filing.” Lawrence v. Florida, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1085 (2007)

Case 2:07-cv-02028-ROS Document 17 Filed 05/12/08 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 -

(quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has not demonstrated an extraordinary circumstance

preventing him from timely filing his petition. See Lawrence, 127 S.Ct. at 1085 (“Attorney

miscalculation [of AEDPA's limitations period] is simply not sufficient to warrant equitable

tolling, particularly in the postconviction context where prisoners have no constitutional right

to counsel.”); Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We now join our

sister circuits and hold that a pro se petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself,

an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.”); United States v. Marcello, 212

F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2000) (refusing to grant equitable tolling where error resulted in

petitioner's claim being filed one day late); Eaves v. Burris, 529 F. Supp. 2d 470, 476 (D.

Del. 2008) (“To the extent petitioner made a mistake or miscalculation regarding the

one-year filing period, that mistake does not warrant equitably tolling the limitations

period.”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 4) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02028-ROS Document 17 Filed 05/12/08 Page 3 of 3