Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01647/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01647-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur Roy Mayhan, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-1647-PHX-PGR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Arthur Roy Mayhan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 22, 2009,

challenging his conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court for aggravated taking the

identity of another, and the imposition of an aggravated 14-year term of imprisonment. He

raises four grounds for relief. Although it is unclear to the Court what grounds he is raising,

it appears that he is asserting two arguments concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel,

an argument that the trial court imposed an improper sentence, and a contention relating to

the execution of a search warrant. Respondents contend that Mayhan’s petition is untimely

and in the alternative that his claims are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. The Court

agrees that the petition is untimely, and that Mayhan has not shown he is entitled to any

statutory or equitable tolling. The Court therefore recommends that Mayhan’s petition be

denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Following the trial court’s acceptance of Mayhan’s guilty plea, and the imposition of

sentence, Mayhan filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on May 7, 2007 (Doc. #15, Exh

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

C). Counsel was appointed on May 16, 2007; on February 14, 2008, counsel filed a Notice

of Completion of Review finding no colorable claims (Id., Exh D, E). On February 20, 2008,

the trial court gave Mayhan 45 days up to and including April 5 to file a pro per petition; he

was warned that a failure to timely file his petition could result in dismissal (Id., Exh F). On

May 5, 2008, the trial court dismissed Mayhan’s Rule 32 proceeding because Mayhan had

failed to file a petition by the April 5 deadline (Id., Exh G).

In July 2008, Mayhan filed with the Arizona Supreme Court a pleading entitled

“Petition for Review” and one entitled “Motion to Quash Warrant.” The pleadings were

returned to Mayhan on August 11, 2008, with instructions to file them in the court of appeals

(Id., Exh H). On August 13, 2008, the supreme court received another pleading from

Mayhan, asking about the status of his earlier pleadings; this was also returned to Mayhan,

with an explanation for the court’s rejection of the earlier documents (Id., Exh I). During

July 2008, Mayhan also mailed two pleadings entitled “Special Action” to the supreme court;

both were dismissed by the supreme court, with instructions to Mayhan that “such claims

should be presented to the superior court in compliance with Rule 32" (Id., Exh J-L).

Mayhan filed his federal petition on July 22, 2009.

Mayhan was required to file his federal petition within one year of 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); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S.Ct.

681, 685 (2009). However, “[t]he 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.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Assuming that Mayhan’s post-conviction proceedings in superior court

constituted a “properly filed application” for purposes of § 2244(d)(2), even though a petition

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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

A state prisoner could file a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief simply to toll the

limitations period, without ever filing a petition within the time period allowed by the state

court. If an untimely petition for post-conviction relief does not toll the one-year limitations

period, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 412-415 (2005), an argument can be made that

the failure to file any petition at all should also not toll the period. However, because of the

Court’s conclusion that the petition is untimely under either calculation, it need not reach the

issue.

- 3 -

was never filed,1

 any tolling of the one-year period ended when the deadline for filing his

petition expired on April 6, 2008. Therefore, absent any further statutory tolling, he was

required to file his federal petition on April 6, 2009. The time period in July 2008 when he

was attempting to file pleadings in the supreme court did not further toll the limitations

period; the supreme court never filed the pleadings, rejecting them as not properly filed. His

petition, filed on July 22, 2009, was therefore untimely, absent any equitable tolling.

The Court concludes that Mayhan is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has not

demonstrated the existence of any extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from

timely filing his petition. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418-19 (2005). Mayhan was

informed by the superior court of his need to timely file a pro per petition in order to avoid

dismissal of the Rule 32 proceeding. He does not contend that he misunderstood this

requirement. He simply chose not to file a petition. In addition, he was again informed by

the supreme court of his need to file his petition for review in the court of appeals; again he

chose not to do so.

Following the time allowed by the Court for briefing, Mayhan filed a pleading entitled

“Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement.” See Doc. #22. Again, it is unclear what Mayhan is

contending, but it appears that he is attempting to raise new issues without having received

leave of the Court. For that reason, his motion will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Arthur Roy Mayhan’s Motion to Vacate

Plea Agreement (Doc. #22).

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Arthur Roy Mayhan’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01647-PGR Document 26 Filed 03/19/10 Page 4 of 4