Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03083/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03083-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Howard Greathouse,

Petitioner,

vs.

Shelly Sonberg, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3083-PHX-PGR (HCE)

 

 ORDER

In an order of dismissal entered on March 10, 2008, the Court dismissed

the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, because it

was filed some 21⁄2 years after the expiration of the limitations period mandated

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and because the late filing was not excused by

statutory or equitable tolling; the Court entered its judgment of dismissal on that

same date. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the judgment on March

24, 2008, and the Court entered an order denying the petitioner a certificate of

appealability on March 27, 2008. On July 7, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel, a Request for Evidentiary Hearing, and a Motion to

Vacate Judgment [Pursuant to] Rule 60(b)[(6)]. On July 8, 2008, the respondents

filed an opposition to the petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and to

vacate the judgment, arguing that the Court was without jurisdiction to resolve

Case 2:06-cv-03083-PGR Document 42 Filed 02/02/09 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 -

them due to the pendency of the petitioner’s appeal. In an order entered on

January 15, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order denying

the petitioner a certificate of appealability, and as a result it terminated the

petitioner’s appeal.

Having reviewed the petitioner’s pending motions, the Court finds that they

should all be denied inasmuch as nothing in them establishes that the petitioner’s

federal habeas petition was timely filed or that any exception to the AEDPA’s time

bar authorizes the Court to consider the merits of any of his claims. 

First, as the Court noted in its order of dismissal, the petitioner has not

established that any of the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate

counsel prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas petition.

Second, although the petitioner contends in his pending motions that

alleged errors by his counsel and the state courts created a miscarriage of

justice, he has not established that such errors permit him to obtain federal

review of his time-barred constitutional claims on their merits. In order for the

petitioner to establish the existence of a miscarriage of justice sufficient to

overcome the AEDPA’s time bar, he must meet the “actual innocence” gateway

established in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). See Johnson v. Knowles, 541

F.3d 933 (9th Cir.2008). Under the Schlup standard, in order to overcome a

procedural bar the petitioner must present evidence of his factual innocence so

strong that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found

the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup, at 327. The

establishment of this “rarely successful” argument requires the submission of

“new reliable evidence - whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy

eye-witness accounts, or critical physical evidence - that was not presented at

Case 2:06-cv-03083-PGR Document 42 Filed 02/02/09 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 -

trial.” Id. at 324. To the extent that the petitioner is in fact claiming actual

innocence, as opposed to relying only on procedural violations to establish an

alleged fundamental miscarriage of justice, see Johnson, 541 F.3d at 937 (“A

petitioner who asserts only procedural violations without claiming actual

innocence fails to meet [the Schlup standard[,]”) he has not pointed to the

existence of any evidence of actual innocence of the type sufficient to entitle him

to any relief from the Court’s previous ruling that his habeas petition is barred by

the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(doc. #36), Request for Evidentiary Hearing (doc. #37), and Motion to Vacate

Judgment [Pursuant to] Rule 60(b)[(6)] (doc. #38) are all denied.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-03083-PGR Document 42 Filed 02/02/09 Page 3 of 3