Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04103/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04103-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald L. Richie, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, Arizona Department of

Corrections; Attorney General of the State

of Arizona, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-4103-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before this Court is Ronald L Richie's petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and three filed supplemental pleadings, in which

Petitioner challenges his conviction (Doc.1, 5, 6, 7). Petitioner was convicted of first degree

murder and kidnapping, and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment on the murder

charge and to a concurrent 21-year prison term on the kidnapping charge. Petitioner has filed

the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus and three supplemental pleadings claiming twelve grounds

for relief. Respondent has filed an Answer and asserts that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas

Corpus should be dismissed because Petitioner did not file the petition in a timely manner

and because Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted. The matter was referred to United

States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan who has issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Court deny and dismiss Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus with

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/30/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

prejudice (Doc. 35). Petitioner has filed an objection to Judge Duncan's R&R asserting that

the Court should reconsider the ruling. 

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. Id.

 DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims at least twelve bases for habeas relief. All twelve claims, however,

are barred because the petition was filed untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), prisoners

have one year to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court. This statute of limitations

begins to run once a prisoner's conviction is finalized. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(a). However,

tolling of the statute of limitations is provided during the time in "which a properly filed

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

judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); See Isley v. Arizona Dept. of

Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Petitioner was convicted of murder and kidnapping in 1994. The judgment was

finalized on March 7, 1996, when Petitioner's convictions and sentences were affirmed by

the court of appeals. On November 20, 1996, Petitioner filed a notice of post conviction

relief. On March 23, 1998, following several extensions of time, Petitioner's court appointed

counsel filed a notice of completion of post conviction review, asserting that there were no

valid claims for relief. Counsel then requested a 30-day extension to allow Petitioner to file

a pro se petition. The trial court extended the deadline for Petitioner to file a pro se petition

to June 22, 1998. On April 27, 1998, Petitioner filed a pro se motion requesting the trial

court to authorize payment for the transcription of various witnesses' interview statements,

and also requesting an indefinite time extension to file his post conviction review petition.

The trial court denied Petitioner's motions on August 21, 1998, and dismissed the post

conviction proceedings because he had failed to file by the June 22, 1998 deadline.

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/30/07 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

27

28

- 3 -

 Judge Duncan pointed out in his Report and Recommendation that the tolling period

for Petitioner to file his federal petition ended on August 21, 1998, when the trial court

dismissed all post conviction proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Thus, Petitioner had

one year from August 21, 1998 to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner, however, did not file his petition for habeas relief until

December 5, 2005, six years after the deadline. This Court agrees with Judge Duncan's

Report and Recommendation and finds that the filing of the petition of December 5, 2005

was untimely. 

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling. A petitioner is not permitted

equitable tolling unless he proves two elements: (1) that he had been pursuing his rights

diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v.

DiGiguglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Petitioner did not produce any evidence that

extraordinary circumstances existed that would have prevented him from filing his Writ of

Habeas Corpus on time.

 CONCLUSION

The Court finds no grounds upon which to grant Petitioner's Writ for Habeas

Corpus relief. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Judge Duncan's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 35) in its entirety as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, including supplemental pleadings, (Doc. 1, 5, 6, 7) is denied and

dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 29th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 37 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3