Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00803/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00803-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Alan Boyd, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

McWilliams; Attorney General of the State

of Arizona , 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-803-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On March 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1)

On February 26, 2007, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. 15) Magistrate

Judge Duncan's recommendation is premised on a finding that the petition was untimely. On

March 28, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. For the following reasons, the Court

will adopt the R&R and deny the petition.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner argues

that the conclusion his petition was untimely should be rejected because he was unaware of

certain filing deadlines and he relied on erroneous legal advice from a paralegal. These

arguments are aimed at establishing equitable tolling. "[A] litigant seeking equitable tolling

bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights

Case 2:06-cv-00803-ROS Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

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

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Petitioner has not established either of these

elements. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's ignorance of the law

and the alleged statements by the paralegal are insufficient to establish equitable tolling. See

Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[A] pro se petitioner's lack of legal

sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.").

Absent equitable tolling, Petitioner's petition was untimely and must be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED and

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close this

case.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00803-ROS Document 19 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2