Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01415/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01415-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathoum Mutab, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections; and the

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1415-PHX-DGC (CRP)

ORDER

Kathoum Mutab pled guilty in state court to four counts of attempted child

molestation and dangerous crimes against children. He was sentenced to an aggravated

12-year prison term and lifetime probation. He presently is incarcerated at the Arizona State

Prison–Winchester Unit, in Tucson.

Mutab filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

arguing that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), entitles him to a jury determination

of his aggravated sentence. Dkt. #1. United States Magistrate Judge Charles Pyle has issued

a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition be dismissed as

untimely. Dkt. #12. Mutab has filed an objection to the R&R. Dkt. #13. A response and

reply have been filed. Dkt. ##18, 23. For reasons that follow, the Court will accept the R&R

and dismiss the petition.

Case 2:07-cv-01415-DGC-CRP Document 24 Filed 11/25/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

I. R&R Review Standard.

The Court must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which

specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3).

II. Discussion.

Mutab was sentenced on May 27, 2004. Dkt. #10-1 at 10-14. He raised a Blakely

challenge to his sentence in a state court petition for post-conviction relief filed on

February 22, 2005. Id. at 18-24. The trial court denied the petition (id. at 44), and the court

of appeals denied review on February 23, 2006 (id. at 50). Mutab did not seek review from

the Arizona Supreme Court, and the time for doing so expired on March 25, 2006. See Ariz.

R. Crim. P. 31.19(a).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) established

a one-year period of limitation for federal habeas petitions filed by state prisoners.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That period generally begins to run when the state conviction

becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking

such review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Mutab’s conviction became final on March 25,

2006, when the time to seek review from the Arizona Supreme Court expired. Mutab had

one year, until March 25, 2007, to file a federal habeas petition under the AEDPA.

The R&R concludes that the instant petition is untimely because it was filed on

July 24, 2007, four months late. Dkt. #12 at 4. The R&R further concludes that Mutab has

not shown an entitlement to statutory or equitable tolling of the limitation period. Id. at 6-7.

Mutab objects to the Magistrate Judge’s statements that Mutab did not file a collateral

appeal and never sought collateral review. Dkt. #13 at 1-2. Mutab asserts that collateral

review is not available under Arizona law where the defendant pleads guilty. Id. He

further states that he is confused by the Magistrate Judge’s reference to “collateral appeal”

Case 2:07-cv-01415-DGC-CRP Document 24 Filed 11/25/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

and “collateral review” because a habeas petition “is synonymous with ‘collateral

review/appeal.’” Id.

The Magistrate Judge’s statement that Mutab never sought collateral review refers to

a review of the final decision denying Mutab’s state court petition for post-conviction relief.

See at 2, 6. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the one-year limitation period established

by the AEDPA began to run when Mutab’s conviction became final on March 25, 2006

(Dkt. #12 at 2), and the period was not statutorily tolled because Mutab never filed a

collateral appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (id. at 6). See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). This conclusion does not change even if, as Mutab asserts, Arizona law

precluded him from seeking collateral review of the denial of his petition for post-conviction

relief. Mutab has not otherwise presented a valid objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusion that statutory tolling does not apply.

Mutab objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Mutab has not shown an

entitlement to equitable tolling of the AEDPA’s limitation period. Dkt. #13 at 3-4. Equitable

tolling “is not available in most cases,” Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999),

and is appropriate only if Mutab can show diligent pursuit of his rights and some

“extraordinary circumstance” preventing his timely filing, United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d

1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Mutab has not met either prerequisite.

Mutab claims that he did not know he could seek collateral review of the denial of his

petition for post-conviction relief until July 2007, when he learned from a fellow inmate that

a federal habeas petition could be filed. Dkt. #1 at 5. Mutab asserts that he diligently sought

to bring his Blakely claim in federal court (see id.), but provides no facts supporting this

assertion. Mutab has not shown that he diligently pursued his right to federal habeas relief.

See Bryant v. Schriro, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A petitioner must show that his

untimeliness was caused by an external impediment and not by his own lack of diligence.”).

In August 1997, the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) implemented

Departmental Order 902 (“D.O. 902”), which disbanded case law collections in ADOC

facilities but provided inmates with access to paralegals. See Bryant, 499 F.3d at 1059.

Case 2:07-cv-01415-DGC-CRP Document 24 Filed 11/25/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Mutab claims that D.O. 902 precluded him from learning the “language, interpretation, or

application of the AEDPA” and he therefore should not be bound by the AEDPA’s one-year

period of limitation. Dkt. #13 at 3-4. Mutab’s purported ignorance of the law “is not, by

itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.” Raspberry v. Garcia, 448

F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Mutab has presented no evidence showing that he

took advantage of paralegal assistance provided by the ADOC, he has failed to show that the

implementation of D.O. 902 caused his untimeliness. See Bryant, 499 F.3d at 1061. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Mutab is not entitled to equitable tolling. See Dkt.

#12 at 7; see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (the threshold

necessary to trigger equitable tolling under the AEDPA “‘is very high, lest the exceptions

swallow the rule’”) (citation omitted).

III. Conclusion.

The R&R recommends that Mutab’s habeas petition be dismissed because it was filed

four months after the statute of limitations expired and Mutab is not entitled to statutory or

equitable tolling. Mutab’s objection to the R&R is without merit. The Court will accept the

R&R and dismiss the petition.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Charles Pyle’s report and recommendation (Dkt. #12) is

accepted.

2. Petitioner Kathoum Mutab’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is

dismissed.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

DATED this 24th day of November, 2009.

 

 

Case 2:07-cv-01415-DGC-CRP Document 24 Filed 11/25/09 Page 4 of 4