Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00052/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00052-0/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

Jerry Dean McCoy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-052-TUC-RCC (GEE)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On January 25, 2010, Jerry Dean McCoy, an inmate confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Manzanita in Tucson, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. [doc. #1] Before the court are the petition and

the respondents’ answer.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for report and recommendation. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, enter an order dismissing the petition. It is time-barred.

Summary of the Case

McCoy was convicted after a bench trial of “three counts of kidnapping, three counts of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, and one count each of

burglary, aggravated robbery, and armed robbery.” (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit A, p. 2.)

Case 4:10-cv-00052-RCC Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 On January 25, 2010, the petition was filed with the district court. Under the prison mailbox

rule, the court may consider a petition filed when a pro se prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for

forwarding. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 268, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2381 (1988); Huizar v. Carey,

273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). Unfortunately, McCoy did not indicate on his petition when it was

so delivered. (Petition.)

- 2 -

The trial court sentenced McCoy to “concurrent terms of imprisonment on all counts, the

longest of which was twenty-one years.” Id.

McCoy filed a timely notice of direct appeal arguing the trial court violated his right to

a speedy trial pursuant to Ariz.R.Crim.P. 8. (Respondents’ answer, p. 2.) The court of appeals

affirmed his convictions and sentences on March 30, 2007. Id.

On April 27, 2007, McCoy filed timely notice of post-conviction relief. Id. He argued

in his petition that trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to challenge the pretrial

identifications and (b) failing to cross-examine two witnesses as to possible government

inducements to secure their testimony. Id., pp. 2-3. The trial court denied the petition on

December 10, 2007. (Respondents’ answer, Exhibit G.) On October 23, 2008, the court of

appeals granted review but denied relief. Id., p. 3. McCoy did not appeal to the Arizona

Supreme Court. Id.

On January 25, 2010, McCoy filed1

 the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. [doc. #1] He raises the following

claims: (1) counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to request a Dessureault hearing (to challenge

the out of court identification) and (b) failing to cross-examine the government’s witnesses

concerning promises and incentives made by the government, and (2) his speedy trial rights

were violated. Id.

The respondents filed an answer arguing, among other things, that the petition is timebarred. McCoy did not file a reply.

Discussion

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A one-year limitation

Case 4:10-cv-00052-RCC Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

period applies to persons in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The statute reads in pertinent part as follows:

 (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing

by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

The limitation period for all of McCoy’s claims was triggered on “the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). McCoy’s direct appeal was denied on

March 30, 2007. He had 30 days to file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.19(a). His judgment became final when he failed to do so.

The limitation period did not immediately commence, however, because McCoy’s postconviction relief proceeding was pending at that time. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). This

proceeding tolled the limitation statute until October 23, 2008, when the court of appeals issued

it decision granting review but denying relief. The limitation period began running the next day

and ended one year later on October 23, 2009. The instant petition was filed on January 25,

2010. It is time-barred.

Case 4:10-cv-00052-RCC Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 5
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 -

McCoy did not file a reply to the respondents’ answer and did not offer a formal

argument as to why he might be eligible for equitable tolling of the limitation statute. In his

petition, however, he explained that he “has been having a battle with cancer, and has been in

and out of the hospital for the past year for one reason or another.” (Petition, p. 11.) He further

states he has limited access to legal material or legal expertise. McCoy’s showing is insufficient

to justify equitable tolling of the limitation period.

“[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been

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

prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2010 WL 2346549. “Equitable

tolling is justified in few cases. . . .” Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).

“Indeed, the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling . . . is very high, lest the exceptions

swallow the rule.” Id. “[The petitioner] bears the burden of showing that this extraordinary

exclusion should apply to him.” Id. 

McCoy alleges generally that his poor health, lack of legal acumen, and limited access

to legal resources delayed the filing of his petition. His arguments, however, are completely

conclusionary and lack the specificity necessary to prove he is entitled to equitable tolling.

For example, he does not provide the court with specifics about his illness or the dates

of his alleged hospitalization. He therefore cannot prove he has been pursuing his rights

diligently and his illness is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from filing a

timely petition. 

The claims advanced by McCoy in his petition are the same claims he brought in his

direct appeal and in his post-conviction relief petition. They are not particularly numerous or

complex. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how McCoy’s limited access to legal resources

would have prevented him from filing his petition within the limitation period. The court

concludes McCoy is not entitled to equitable tolling. See, e.g., Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d

1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (Equitable tolling was not warranted where the petitioner alleged he

was pro se, “he lacked access to his files for 46 days,” his prison library “was missing a handful

of reporter volumes,” and he relied on “helpers who were transferred or too busy to attend to

Case 4:10-cv-00052-RCC Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

his petitions.”); U.S. v. Van Poyck, 980 F.Supp. 1108, 1111 (C.D.Cal. 1997) (Equitable tolling

was not warranted where the petitioner alleged “all of his state transcripts were destroyed, that

. . . he does not speak or understand English well nor does he understand the law, and that his

prison has been in “lockdown” status that has prevented him from using the prison law

library.”); but see Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2005)

(Equitable tolling was warranted where prison transfer deprived the petitioner of his legal

papers for 11 months leaving him only one month to prepare his petition.).

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [doc. #1]

It is time-barred.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondents.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00052-RCC Document 10 Filed 07/09/10 Page 5 of 5