Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03064/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03064-0/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wade Thomas Hutchins, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Superintendent of ASPC-Florence, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3064-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Wade

Thomas Hutchins, a state prisoner, and a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by

United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss. Dkt. ## 1, 22. The R&R recommends that

the petition be denied as untimely and dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. #22. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court will adopt the R&R and deny the petition.

I. The R&R and the Objections.

As the R&R notes, a state prisoner has one-year within which to file a federal habeas

corpus petition after his or her conviction becomes final. Dkt. #22 (citing 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A)). Following the Supreme Court of Arizona’s denial of review of Petitioner’s

conviction and the expiration of the ninety-day period Petitioner is allowed to seek further

review before the Supreme Court of the United States, Petitioner’s conviction became final

on January 20, 1999. Id. Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations applicable to

Petitioner’s filing of a habeas petition ended on January 21, 2000. Id. 

Case 2:06-cv-03064-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

Petitioner did not file his state petition for post-conviction relief until July 27, 2005

– well after the one-year deadline had passed. Id. Petitioner asserted, however, that “he is

entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because he was unable to file a timely

petition due to a ‘devastating mental illness.’” Id. at 4 (quoting Dkt. #20 at 2). While

Petitioner presented some evidence suggesting that he had mental health issues in August of

1996, Judge Voss noted that Petitioner did not show that a mental illness existed beyond this

point through January 21, 2000. Id. As a result, Judge Voss determined that equitable tolling

of the statute of limitations was not appropriate. Id.

The state post-conviction petition was denied on September 1, 2005. Id. Petitioner

filed a federal habeas corpus petition on December 21, 2006. See Dkt. #1. Judge Voss

accordingly found that “even if the time leading up to the state post-conviction petition was

equitably tolled due to mental illness, once the post-conviction petition was decided,

Petitioner still failed to file his habeas petition within one year thereafter.” Dkt. #22 at 5-6.

Judge Voss further stated that Petitioner’s argument regarding the preclusive effect of his

mental condition on his ability to file a timely habeas petition was “undermined by the fact

that [Petitioner] retained counsel to represent him in his state petition for post-conviction

relief and his habeas petition.” Id. at 5 n.2. In light of these considerations, Judge Voss

concluded that the habeas petition is time-barred and should be denied. Id.

A party may file specific, written objections to an R&R within ten days after being

served with a copy the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

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

objections are made. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

On November 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a one-page objection to the R&R and made

three cursory arguments, without elaboration or supporting factual material: (1) “[t]hat

petitioner was in fact mentally ill from the period whereat [sic] his conviction was affirmed

and one year thereafter when he should have filed for a writ of habeas corpus,” (2) “[t]hat

petitioner did not have the wherewithal to hire counsel for his post-conviction proceedings

Case 2:06-cv-03064-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/07 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 these [habeas] proceedings. . . . It was in fact petitioner’s wife . . . who hired counsel on

behalf of petitioner,” and (3) “[t]hat there is in fact enough evidence warranting an

evidentiary hearing as to the mental status of petitioner at all relevant times during these and

past proceedings.” Dkt. #23 at 1. 

II. Discussion.

The Court’s review is limited to Petitioner’s three objections. See Thomas, 474 U.S.

at 149 (noting that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 

First, Petitioner contends that he was mentally ill during the limitations period.

Evidence presented to Judge Voss showed only that Petitioner’s mental health issues existed

in August of 1996. See Dkt. #22. Petitioner has provided the Court with no supplemental

information suggesting that he was mentally ill beyond this point.

Second, Petitioner notes that his wife retained counsel to represent him in his state

post-conviction proceedings and this petition. Dkt. #23. As Judge Voss stated, however,

“Petitioner . . . did not have to prepare the petitions himself. He simply had to contact

counsel and supply him with the information to prepare and file the petitions.” Dkt. #22 at

5 n.2. This is true whether Petitioner or his wife retained the attorney. 

Moreover, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he was unable to file a timely habeas

petition even in the absence of retained counsel. To justify equitable tolling, Petitioner must

show that “extraordinary circumstances beyond his control made it impossible to file a

petition on time and the extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness.”

United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Laws v. Lamarque, 351

F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2003)); see Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioner has made no such showing.

Third, Petitioner asserts that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an evidentiary

hearing. Dkt. #23. “In habeas corpus proceedings, an evidentiary hearing is required where

the petitioner’s allegations, if proved, would establish the right to relief.” Campbell v. Wood,

18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citations omitted). An evidentiary hearing need

Case 2:06-cv-03064-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/07 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 -

not be held where the petitioner’s allegations are “conclusory and wholly devoid of

specifics.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner has not submitted any specific information

suggesting that he suffered from a mental illness during the relevant limitations periods.

Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to an evidentiary

hearing.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The R&R (Dkt. #7) is adopted.

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

3. The clerk is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03064-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4