Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01647/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01647-1/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

1

 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s

deadline under the AEDPA for filing this action was, at best, no later than April 6,

2009; this action, however, was not filed until July 22, 2009.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur Roy Mayhan,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1647-PHX-PGR (DKD)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Duncan in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Mr. David

K. Duncan[‘s] Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27), the Court finds that the

petitioner’s objections should be overruled as legally meritless and that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that this action should be dismissed as

time-barred as it was filed after the expiration of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations.1

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 30 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 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

2

 The Court notes that it delayed the issuance of this Order pending the

Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida given that the main issue to be

decided by the Supreme Court in that case was whether the AEDPA’s limitations

period is subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling.

- 2 -

entitled to any equitable tolling because he has not demonstrated that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented the timely filing of his

federal habeas petition. Holland v. Florida, U.S. , S.Ct. , 2010 WL

2346549, at *12 (June 14, 2010).2

 Although the petitioner cursorily states in his

Objections that he is actually innocent of the charge for which he was convicted,

there is no actual innocence exception to the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Lee

v. Lambert, F.3d , 2010 WL 2652505, at *3 (9th Cir. July 6, 2010) (“The oneyear limitations period established by [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d) contains no explicit

exemption for petitions claiming actual innocence, and we decline to add one.”)

(Internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 26) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Request[] [for] Status of

Objection to Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Mr.

David K. Duncan (Doc. 29) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied as

time-barred and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 30 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 30 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3