Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02293/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02293-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Joseph Glassey, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2293-PHX-PGR (BPV)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Velasco in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Report and

Recommendation (doc. #21), the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the petitioner’s federal habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, should be dismissed because it was filed more than four years after the

expiration of the limitations period mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no merit to the

petitioner’s contention that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. A

prisoner seeking equitable tolling must show (1) that he has been pursuing his

rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The petitioner has not met the

very high threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling since none of his 

Case 2:06-cv-02293-PGR Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 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

- 2 -

contentions regarding the alleged inadequacies of the Arizona Department of

Corrections’ contract paralegal program as a whole are sufficient to establish that

he diligently took advantage of whatever assistance was available to him or that

the contract paralegal program caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas

petition. Therefore,

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

(doc. #18) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied as

time-barred and that this action is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court

shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02293-PGR Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 2