Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02028/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02028-1/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 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ernest Clyde Esry, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-02028-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner, Ernest Clyde Esry, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

October 4, 2013 but with a certificate of mailing dated September 19, 2013. The Petition 

was subsequently amended and raised four grounds for relief. Respondents filed their 

Response on March 4, 2014 arguing that the Petition was untimely and barred by the 

statute of limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Petitioner also filed a Motion for 

Release. 

 On May 28, 2014 the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice, 

the Motion for Release be denied and a Certificate of Appealability also be denied. The 

Magistrate Judge found the habeas petition was filed long after the expiration of the one 

year statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge analyzed the possibility of equitable 

tolling and found that Petitioner did not offer grounds for equitable tolling and the 

Magistrate Judge found none. The Magistrate Judge also considered whether there was 

any evidence that Petitioner was excused from filing within the statute of limitations 

Case 2:13-cv-02028-SRB Document 31 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

because he had a convincing claim of actual innocence and found that Petitioner did not 

offer any new reliable evidence of actual innocence. 

 Petitioner filed timely written objections on June 13, 2014 and continues to assert 

that the filing of his habeas corpus petition in state court resulted in a tolling or extension 

of the one year statute of limitations. As noted by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 

Recommendation, by the time of the filing of the state court petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, Petitioner’s one year statute of limitation had already long expired. After 

considering the statutory tolling period, Petitioner’s one year statute of limitation 

commenced running on May 4, 2010 and expired one year later on May 3, 2011. 

Petitioner did not file his state habeas petition until April 1, 2013. 

 Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he is not excused 

from the statute of limitations because of a credible claim of actual innocence. But all 

Petitioner offers in support of this claim is an argument about a motion in limine filed in 

January 2007 by the prosecutor regarding the victim’s prior bad acts. Petitioner claims 

that the error of the trial court in granting the motion in limine deprived him of his right 

to a complete defense of self-defense. This argument falls far short of new reliable 

evidence that was not presented at trial. 

 Upon de novo review the Court finds itself in agreement with Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and concludes that Petitioner’s objections must 

be overruled. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 29) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 11) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Release is denied. (Doc. 

20) 

Case 2:13-cv-02028-SRB Document 31 Filed 07/07/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable 

and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 Dated this 7th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02028-SRB Document 31 Filed 07/07/14 Page 3 of 3