Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002-3/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

Marzet Farris, III,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Ryan Thornell, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-23-08002-PCT-JAT

ORDER

On October 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued 

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition in this case be 

dismissed because it is barred by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s 

statute of limitations.1(Doc. 39). On December 5, 2023, this Court issued an Order 

discussing the statute of limitations issue in this case. (Doc. 44). In that Order, the Court 

concluded that the date on the mailing certificate of the petition for review Petitioner sent 

to the Arizona Court of Appeals (November 30, 2020) was the date of mailing. (Doc. 44 

at 4). The Court then ordered Petitioner to file a supplement regarding how he mailed his 

petition for review. (Id. at 4-5).

Petitioner has now filed the supplement. (Doc. 45). In the supplement, Petitioner 

indicated that he mailed his petition for review by delivering it to the prison legal 

mail/property office for mailing. (Doc. 45). Based on how the Court understands the 

1 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

record (as recounted in the December 5, 2023 Order), Petitioner establishing that he 

delivered his petition for review to the prison officials would make his petition for review 

filed on November 30, 2020 by operation of the prison mailbox rule. Further, as the Court 

stated in the December 5, 2023 Order:

This Court’s understanding of the statute of limitation issue in this 

case is that if Petitioner’s petition for the review with the Arizona Court of 

Appeals was timely for purposes of statutory tolling, then his tolling would 

run until January 24, 2022, making his January 4, 2023, Petition in this case 

within the one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 39 at 4). However, if 

Petitioner’s petition for review with the Arizona Court of Appeals was not 

timely filed, then nothing filed thereafter was properly filed or pending 

before the Arizona courts. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run 

December 1, 2020, and ended November 30, 2021; making the January 4, 

2023 petition in this case untimely. (Doc. 39 at 9).

It is undisputed that for the petition for review to have been timely, it 

had to be “filed” by November 30, 2020. 

(Doc. 44 at 3).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the petition for review was filed with 

the Arizona Court of Appeals on November 30, 2020. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) is rejected.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is re-referred to Magistrate Judge 

Metcalf for the preparation of a new Report and Recommendation.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024.

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 46 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 2