Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04103/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04103-0/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

1

The petition was actually filed in the district court on December 14, 2005, but under

the prison mailbox rule the petition is deemed filed on the date the petition is delivered to

prison authorities for mailing. See Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir.

2003).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald L. Richie, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, Arizona Department of

Corrections; Attorney General of the State

of Arizona, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-4103-PHX-MHM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Ronald L. Richie filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 5, 2005;1

 on

January 26, February 9 and April 6, 2006, he thrice supplemented his petition (Doc. ##1, 5,

6, 7). He challenges his 1994 convictions for first degree murder and kidnapping, and

concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and 21 years. He presents twelve grounds for

habeas relief. Respondents contend that his petition is untimely and that his claims are

procedurally defaulted. The Court agrees that the petition is untimely and recommends that

it be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 35 Filed 05/09/07 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

Richie filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in 2006, after he filed his

petition for habeas corpus. Accordingly, the Court will not address the subsequent petition.

- 2 -

Richie's convictions and sentences were affirmed by the court of appeals on March

7, 1996 and the supreme court denied review on September 18, 1996 (Doc. #31, Exh C-E).

On November 20, 1996, he filed a notice of post-conviction relief; following several

extensions of time, counsel filed a notice of completion of post-conviction review on March

23, 1998, indicating that she was unable to find any claims for relief (Id., Exh F-I). On April

1, 1998, the trial court extended the deadline for Richie to file a pro se petition to June 22,

1998 (Id., Exh J). On April 27, 1998, Richie filed a pro se motion requesting that the trial

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

an indefinite time extension to file his PCR petition (Id. Exh K). On August 21, 1998, the

trial court denied both motions, and dismissed the post-conviction proceedings because

Richie had not filed his petition by the June 22 deadline (Id. Exh M). Richie did not seek

review in the court of appeals. 2

Richie was required to file his federal petition within one year of the date the

judgment of conviction became final in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Richie's case

became final on direct review on December 16, 1998, the date upon which the time for

seeking certiorari from the United States Supreme Court expired. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the

deadline for filing his federal petition was December 16, 1999. However, "the time during

which a properly filed application for 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." See 2244(d)(2).

The Court notes initially that because the time for seeking certiorari review from the

Supreme Court had not expired when Richie filed his notice of post-conviction relief, the

period of limitation had not begun to run. In addition, although his petition was ultimately

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 35 Filed 05/09/07 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

3

Richie asserts in his petition that he has been legally blind since 1997. However, he

does not suggest how this may have affected his ability to timely file his petition. Indeed,

his numerous pleadings in this case indicate otherwise.

- 3 -

dismissed, and his post-conviction relief rights terminated, following the deadline to file a

supplemental petition, his petition was still "properly filed" within the meaning of the statute.

The limitations period began to run on August 21, 1998, when the trial court dismissed the

post-conviction proceedings because Richie had not filed his petition by the June 22

deadline. Even tolling the period during which Richie's post-conviction proceedings were

pending, which ended on August 21, 1998, his petition, filed in December 2005, is untimely,

filed over six years past the period of limitations. In addition, Richie is not entitled to

equitable tolling. There is no evidence that there existed extraordinary circumstances beyond

his control which made it impossible for him to timely file his habeas petition: that he

diligently pursued his rights and that some "extraordinary circumstance stood in his way."

See Pace v. DiGiguglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418. (2005).3

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ronald Richie's petition for writ of

habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. ##1, 5, 6, 7).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING all of Richie's pending motions (Doc. # 25, 26, 28, 30,

32, 33). 

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 ten 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(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten 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. ReynaCase 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 35 Filed 05/09/07 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 -

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 9th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-04103-MHM Document 35 Filed 05/09/07 Page 4 of 4