Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00837/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00837-0/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

Celedito Morales, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Robert Steward, Warden, ASPC Eyman,

Arizona Attorney General, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-0837-PHX-SRB (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Celedito Morales filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 23, 2007,

challenging his conviction in La Paz County Superior Court for transportation of cocaine for

sale, possession of cocaine for sale, and possession of cocaine, and the imposition of

concurrent aggravated prison terms, the longest being 18 years. Morales raises six grounds

for habeas relief. Respondents contend that his petition is untimely. The Court agrees and

recommends that it be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

On direct review, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated Morales’ convictions and

sentences for possession of cocaine for sale and possession of cocaine, and affirmed his

conviction and sentence for transportation of cocaine for sale (Doc. #11, Exh B). The

Arizona Supreme Court denied review on February 8, 2000 (Id., Exh J). Morales filed a

notice of post-conviction relief on April 6, 2000; following an evidentiary hearing, the trial

court denied relief on September 17, 2002 (Id., Exh K, L, M). On August 15, 2003, Morales

Case 2:07-cv-00837-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/20/08 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 -

filed a petition for review; on August 4, 2004, the court of appeals denied review (Id., Exh

O). On June 16, 2005, Morales filed a second post-conviction petition, arguing error in the

jury instructions, admission of evidence, disclosure and sentencing (Id., Exh P). The trial

court found the claims precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a) and untimely (Id., Exh Q).

The court of appeals denied review on May 26, 2006 (Id., Exh R). 

Morales was required to file his federal petition within one year of the time his

conviction became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). His case was final on direct review on

May 9, 2000, the date upon which the time for filing a petition for review to 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). Morales was required to file his habeas petition by May 9,

2001, absent any tolling. 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). Morales

filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief on April 6, 2000. See Isley v. Arizona Dept.

Of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). However, once the court of appeals

denied review of the dismissal of his post-conviction petition on August 4, 2004, his

judgment became final. He was then required to file his habeas petition by August 4, 2005.

Because the trial court dismissed his June 16, 2005 post-conviction petition as untimely, it

was not "properly filed" within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2), and cannot toll the one-year

limitations period. See Pace v. DiGiguglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005).

Finally, Morales is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has not shown extraordinary

circumstances beyond his control which made it impossible for him to timely file: that he

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

Pace, 544 U.S. at 418. In his reply, he acknowledges the Arizona Department of Corrections

policy which limits a prison paralegal’s function to providing forms and administrative

assistance, and specifically prohibits a paralegal from giving legal advice. His request for

further assistance in filing the proper pleadings cannot be the basis for equitable tolling,

Case 2:07-cv-00837-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/20/08 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 -

given that there is no pleading he could file at this point which would toll the already expired

period of limitations.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Celedito Morales’ petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. #1).

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. ReynaTapia, 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 20th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00837-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/20/08 Page 3 of 3