Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00445/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00445-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Charles Loomis, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00445-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On 

September 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report 

and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Petition be denied. Petitioner was 

granted an extension of time until November 2, 2015, to file objections to the R&R. 

 Instead of filing objections, Petitioner filed a motion to amend or alternatively stay 

his Petition. Doc. 19. Petitioner seeks to amend to add a claim that the state courts 

applied the wrong state statute of limitations to Petitioner’s case. If this Court will not 

allow amendment, Petitioner seeks a stay to present this claim to the state courts. 

 Respondents oppose the stay or amendment. Doc. 20. Petitioner filed his Petition 

on the last day to meet the statute of limitations under AEDPA. R&R at 3. Thus, 

Respondents note that any new claims added now would be barred by the statute of 

limitations. Doc. 20 at 2-3. Further Respondents argue that Petitioner’s new claim does 

not relate back to his timely filed Petition. Id. The Court agrees with Respondents that 

any proposed amendment would be untimely, and would not relate back to the original 

Case 2:14-cv-00445-JAT Document 21 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Petition. Thus, this Court will deny amendment because any amendment would be futile 

procedurally. 

 Second, and alternatively, Respondents note that habeas relief is not available for 

errors of state law; and Petitioner’s proposed new claim would allege a violation of only 

state law. Doc. 20 at 3-4. This Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner is 

attempting to allege an error of state law that would not be cognizable on habeas. For 

this reason, any amendment would be futile on the merits; and, this Court will deny the 

request to amend on this alternative basis. 

 Because, even if this claim were exhausted in state court, it would still not provide 

a basis for federal habeas relief, this Court will not stay consideration of this case to 

permit Petitioner to return to state court.1

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to amend or alternatively stay this case (Doc. 

19) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any objections to the R&R are due by 

February 22, 2016. 

 Dated this 20th day of January, 2016. 

 

1

 Nothing in this Order prohibits Petitioner from attempting to present the new 

claim to the state courts should he deem such an effort to be worthwhile; but for the 

reasons stated herein, the Court will not stay this federal habeas case. 

Case 2:14-cv-00445-JAT Document 21 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2