Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00924/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00924-1/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 

Donald Love, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00924-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 On November 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing Petitioner Donald Love’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. The R&R recommended the petition be denied as untimely. Love filed 

objections but, upon de novo review of the timeliness issue, the R&R’s conclusion is 

correct. Therefore, the R&R will be adopted and the petition will be denied. 

BACKGROUND 

 The dates and events most relevant to the issue of timeliness are as follows. In 

2008, Love was charged with various drug-related crimes. On September 29, 2009, Love 

pled guilty to various crimes and was sentenced to more than fifteen years imprisonment. 

(Doc. 11-13 at 62). Love filed a notice of post-conviction relief (“PCR”) on November 4, 

2009. (Doc. 11-3 at 106). After numerous delays, Love filed a petition for postconviction relief on September 28, 2011.1

 (Doc. 11-5 at 32). The state court treated that 

 

1

 The petition indicated it was provided to prison officials on July 31, 2011. (Doc. 

11-5 at 58). Because the timeliness of that petition is not at issue here, the Court need not 

determine the precise filing date. 

Case 2:15-cv-00924-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 as timely. On March 5, 2012, the state court dismissed the petition.2 (Doc. 11-5 

at 166). Shortly after that ruling, Love filed a “Motion to Expand Time to file Petition 

for Review/Rehearing Pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.” (Doc. 11-5 at 168). The motion 

sought “a minimum (30) thirty-day extension of time to file petition for review/rehearing 

herein.” (Doc. 11-5 at 169). The motion indicated it was submitted to prison officials on 

March 19, 2012, but it was not filed with the court until April 9, 2012. (Doc. 11-5 at 168, 

170). According to Respondents, “[t]here is no indication that the trial court ever ruled 

on this motion.” (Doc. 11 at 9). 

 Love seems to have taken no further action regarding his petition until 

approximately two years later.3

 On May 5, 2014, Love filed what he identified as a 

second petition for post-conviction relief. (Doc. 11-7 at 19). A few weeks later, on May 

22, 2014, Love filed a “Motion for Rehearing,” arguing the March 5, 2012 rejection of 

his first petition had been incorrect. (Doc. 11-6 at 2). That motion contained no 

explanation for the two-year delay. On June 12, 2014, the trial court dismissed Love’s 

second petition. (Doc. 11-8 at 2). And on July 8, 2014, the trial court denied the motion 

for rehearing. That denial, however, seems to have mixed up when the order denying the 

first petition had been issued. (Doc. 11-7 at 2) (referring to “March 5, 2014 minute 

entry” and claiming motion for rehearing was filed “more than two months after the Rule 

32 proceeding was dismissed”). On August 7, 2014, Love filed a petition for special 

action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, making the same arguments he presented in his 

motion for rehearing regarding his first petition. (Doc. 11-11 at 2). The court of appeals 

summarily dismissed the petition on August 12, 2014. (Doc. 11-13 at 2). And on 

January 20, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. (Doc. 11-13 at 23). 

 On May 21, 2015, Love filed this federal habeas petition. (Doc. 1). Respondents 

filed a limited response, arguing the petition is time-barred or, in the alternative, all of 

 

2

 This order was filed on March 7, 2012. 

3

 Love filed two “notices” in the interim that are not relevant here. (Doc. 11-7 at 

4). 

Case 2:15-cv-00924-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Love’s claims were procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 11 at 2). The R&R adopted 

Respondents’ view of the sequence of events and concluded “Petitioner’s case became 

final on April 4, 2012, the day the time expired for filing a petition for review in the 

Arizona Court of Appeals of the March 5, 2012 denial of his of-right PCR petition.” 

(Doc. 14 at 11). Love filed objections but did not clearly identify any basis for 

concluding his petition was, in fact, timely. 

ANALYSIS 

The R&R accurately sets forth the manner in which the federal limitations period 

must be calculated. In brief, Love had one year after his convictions became final to file 

his federal petition. Love’s convictions became final on April 4, 2012, the day his time 

expired for seeking review in the Arizona Court of Appeals of the March 5, 2012 denial 

of his of-right PCR petition. Love did not file his federal petition until May 2015, well 

outside the one-year period. Love has not provided any plausible basis for finding either 

statutory or equitable tolling of this time period, meaning his federal petition is untimely. 

 The only slight complication in this time calculation is that it ignores Love’s 

petition for rehearing filed shortly after the March 5, 2012 denial of his of-right PCR 

petition. Under Arizona law, Love had fifteen days to seek rehearing of that denial. 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a). Love submitted a motion for an extension of that fifteen day 

period dated March 19, 2012. That motion was not filed with the court until April 9, 

2012. Respondents and the R&R use the filing date and claim the motion was untimely. 

But the mailbox rule presumably would apply. Cf. Mayer v. State, 908 P.2d 56, 58 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 1995) (“[A] notice of appeal by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed when it is 

properly addressed and delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the clerk of the 

superior court.”). Thus, the motion likely was timely. However, whether the motion was 

timely submitted or not is immaterial because the state court never ruled on it. Pursuant 

to Arizona law, “[a] motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.” 

State v. Hill, 848 P.2d 1375, 1385 (Ariz. 1993). Accordingly, the motion for extension of 

time was denied and Love had fifteen days to submit a motion for rehearing. He did not 

Case 2:15-cv-00924-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

do so nor did he seek review from the Arizona Court of Appeals within the thirty days 

allowed for doing so. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). Love did not submit his motion for 

rehearing until approximately two years later. In that intervening two-year period, the 

deadline for him to seek review by the Arizona Court of Appeals expired as did his 

deadline to file his federal habeas petition. Thus, even assuming Love’s request for 

additional time was timely submitted, his federal petition is still untimely and must be 

denied.4

 Accordingly, 

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

the petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the petition is justified 

by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable. 

 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

 

4

 In his objections to the R&R, Love argues he is entitled to equitable tolling. (Doc. 15 at 6). But to be entitled to equitable tolling, Love would have to establish he 

was pursuing his rights diligently and some “extraordinary circumstances stood in his way” such that he could not timely file his petition. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 

649 (2010). Love has not made a showing of either requirement. 

Case 2:15-cv-00924-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4