Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00225/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00225-1/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

Malik Cornell Prior, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-225-TUC-RCC

ORDER

On April 21, 2010 Petitioner filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (Doc. 1). The Petition was dismissed with leave to

amend. (Doc. 3). Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition on June 3, 2010. (Doc. 5). The

Petition was fully briefed, and the Honorable Bernardo P. Velasco, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (Recommendation) in this action, which advised

the Court to deny the Petition. (Doc. 17). The Court will adopt the Recommendation and

deny the Petition.

The Recommendation advised the Court to find (1) the Petition was timely as to all claims

except the fourth, (2) the first and second grounds were procedurally defaulted because

Petitioner did not articulate federal law as the basis for the claims raised in state court, and

(3) the state court reasonably applied Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Relying

on Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2007), Respondent objected and argued the

Petition was not timely because it was not filed within one year of the Arizona Court of

Case 4:10-cv-00225-RCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/12 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 -

Appeals’ denial of post-conviction relief. (Doc. 18).

The Court reviews this portion of the Recommendation de novo, United States v.

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc ), and finds Respondent’s

arguments unpersuasive. As explained in Celaya v. Stewart, 691 F.Supp.2d 1046 (D.Ariz.

2010), the statute of limitations in habeas cases is tolled pending resolution of postconviction proceedings. In Arizona, if the Arizona Court of Appeals grants review but

denies relief, a petition for post-conviction relief is final after the required mandate issues.

Id. at 1053-54. The Court adopts the Recommendation as to this issue.

 No other objections remaining, the Court reviews the remainder of the

Recommendation for clear error. See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing

Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)). Finding none, the

Court adopts the Recommendation as to the remaining issues. Accordingly,

The Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Velasco. (Doc. 17).

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner is DENIED. (Doc. 3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability

because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its

procedural rulings, that the petition should have been resolved in a different manner, or that

the issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 17th day of April, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00225-RCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2