Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01683/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01683-1/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 1

Because the habeas petition was not timely filed, the Court cannot

resolve the merits of the petition.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Worrell,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01683-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of Petitioner’s Objection to the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 20), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should

be overruled and that his habeas corpus petition, initially filed on August 9, 2013

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred

because it was filed some three and one-half years after the expiration of the

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.1

The petitioner does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the

limitations period, absent any equitable tolling, expired on February 5, 2010. What

Case 2:13-cv-01683-PGR Document 22 Filed 04/28/15 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 -

the petitioner objects to is the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the AEDPA’s

limitations period should not be equitably tolled. The petitioner argues that he is

entitled to equitable tolling (1) because his state post-conviction relief counsel was

ineffective, (2) because he lacked notice and constructive knowledge of the

AEDPA’s filing deadline set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, and/or (3) pursuant to the

Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner has not met his

heavy burden of showing that equitable tolling is applicable here, which requires

that the petitioner establish that he pursued his rights diligently and that some

extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). The petitioner cannot meet the first

prong of the test because the record shows that he waited some three years and

nine months to take further action in state court after the dismissal of his first PCR

proceeding, and that he waited some four and one-half years after the AEDPA’s

limitations period began running to file his habeas petition. The petitioner also

cannot meet the second prong of the test because his lack of legal sophistication

and limited legal resources and his alleged failure to receive effective representation

during the applicable filing period, which the record shows did not amount to attorney

abandonment, do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. As the Magistrate

Judge correctly noted, the Martinez decision has no application to the issue of the

timeliness of the petitioner’s habeas petition. See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611,

630 (11th Cir.2014) (Court stated that “the Martinez rule explicitly relates to excusing

a procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims and does not apply to

AEDPA’s statute of limitations or the tolling of that period.”); Davis v. Ryan, 2015 WL

327456, at *2 (D.Ariz. Jan. 23, 2015) (Court noted that the Supreme Court’s decision

Case 2:13-cv-01683-PGR Document 22 Filed 04/28/15 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 -

in Martinez v. Ryan, while recognizing an equitable excuse for procedural default,

does not provide a time-bar excuse because procedural default and compliance with

the federal statute of limitations are two distinct inquiries.); Owens v. Ryan, 2014 WL

4722491, at *10 (D.Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (“Martinez has no application to the statute

of limitations in the AEDPA which governs Petitioner’s filing in federal court.”)

Therefore,

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

(Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner William Worrell’s Amended Petition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

(Doc. 5) is denied as time-barred and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Request for Issuance of COA

in the Alternative of Dismissal (Doc. 20) is denied and that no certificate of

appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma

pauperis because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the

petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor

whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2015.

Case 2:13-cv-01683-PGR Document 22 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3