Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01903/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01903-1/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

John Eric Cary, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Rivas, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1903-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 23, 2005, challenging

state court convictions that became final on April 12, 2001. The petition alleges ineffective

assistance of counsel and a claim that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531

(2004), entitles Petitioner to be re-sentenced. Petitioner also claims that the state court erred

in denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and in failing to appoint

counsel. On December 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied

because it was filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations set out in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Alternatively the Report and Recommendation recommends denial

because the claims are procedurally defaulted and because the claims lack merit.

Petitioner filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on December 20,

2005, primarily arguing about the application of Blakely v. Washington to his claim for reCase 2:05-cv-01903-SRB Document 20 Filed 01/24/06 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 -

sentencing. He also suggests that had his motion for subpoenas been granted to obtain the

log records from the prison, his claim that he was unable to timely file because of lock-downs

would have been evident. Finally, Petitioner also objects to the failure of the state court to

grant him counsel arguing that had counsel been appointed for him he would have been able

to be re-sentenced after Blakely v. Washington was decided.

Petitioner's objections are without merit. As detailed in the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the statute of limitations for the filing of a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case expired April 4, 2003, more than two years prior to

the filing of the petition. Petitioner has established no grounds for equitable tolling and has

not even made a prima facia case that there was an instance where a lock-down prevented

him from submitting documents to any court. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate

Judge that even if the claims had been timely filed they are procedurally defaulted. Finally,

if Petitioner could overcome the procedural bar it is clear that his claims are without merit.

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections of the Petitioner to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01903-SRB Document 20 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2