Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01952/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01952-0/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

Miguel Mansanares, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Flanigan, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1952-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Petitioner Miguel Mansanares (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Jennifer C. Guerin who, on March 8, 2007, issued a Report and Recommendation that

recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition on the grounds that it is time barred.

(Dkt.#58). On March 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File

Objections to Report and Recommendation[]” (Dkt.#59). The Motion, which this Court will

construe as Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, consists of seventeen

pages of argument by Petitioner supporting the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling

so as to make the Petition timely. The Respondents have not filed any opposition to the

Report and Recommendation. 

Case 2:04-cv-01952-MHM Document 60 Filed 08/30/07 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 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“A judge of the court shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made”). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact.” Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case and finds

itself in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition should be dismissed as it is

untimely pursuant to the one year statute of limitations period implemented by 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). Specifically, as noted in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s conviction

became final on April 9, 2002, and the applicable limitations period began to run on

December 17, 2002, when the Arizona trial court dismissed Petitioner’s Rule 32

Ariz.R.Crim.P. petition. Because Petitioner’s subsequent petitions in state court were

untimely they did not toll the applicable period; thus making the last day of the limitations

period December 17, 2003. The instant Petition was not filed until September 18, 2004; well

after the applicable one-year limitations period. 

In Petitioner’s seventeen pages of objection he does not object to the Magistrate

Judge’s findings with respect to when his conviction became final or when the applicable

limitations period began to run or generally expired. Rather, Petitioner only objects to the

Magistrate Judge’s determination that the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to

excuse Petitioner’s untimeliness. (Dkt.#59). Notably, prior to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation, the Petitioner did not argue that he was unable to timely file the instant

Petition because of any extraordinary circumstances out of his control. See Miranda v. Castro,

292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 527 U.S. 1003 (2002) (stating that equitable

Case 2:04-cv-01952-MHM Document 60 Filed 08/30/07 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

1

 Several times in Petitioner’s objection, he states that an extension of time is needed

to look up certain cases to demonstrate where an alleged violation or fraud occurred to

support his claim of a conspiracy against him. However, to the extent Petitioner requests

additional time to further supplement his seventeen page objection to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court will deny any such request. Notably, the Petition in this case

was filed on September 18, 2004. As such, Petitioner has had more than ample to time to

support his arguments with any evidence.

- 3 -

tolling is “unavailable in most circumstances” and appropriate only “if extraordinary

circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time”)

(citations omitted). In addition, and more importantly, the vast majority of Petitioner’s

objection supporting the application of equitable tolling is based upon Petitioner’s conclusory

allegations of a wide ranging conspiracy between state officials and actors. For instance,

Petitioner states that “[t]he on going harassment appear[s] to be based upon on going (sic) and

continuing racial discrimination conspiracy allegedly initiated by state actors March 2000,

allegedly moving in bad faith under color of law to obstruct rights to due process, deny rights

to liberty, cause loss of property, and drain financial resources by denying civil rights based

upon extreme prejudice for Hispanic race.” (Dkt.#59, p.2). Petitioner repeats such allegations

of a conspiracy multiple times throughout the course of his objection to the Report and

Recommendation and further alleges that such conspiracy caused his Petition before this

Court to be untimely based upon the “obstruct[ion] [of Petitioner’s] access to legal mail.” (Id.

p. 12). Petitioner alleges that the conspiracy encompassed such acts as deliberately mailing

court documents to different inmates, falsifying court documents and other actions that

impeded his ability to timely act. However, the Court finds that these allegations, without

more, provide no basis to suggest that equitable tolling is available to toll the applicable

limitations period. This doctrine only applies in “exceptional circumstances” and Petitioner

fails to persuasively argue that this case falls within that limited scope. Miranda, supra. As

such, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s objection.1

 

Accordingly,

Case 2:04-cv-01952-MHM Document 60 Filed 08/30/07 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting in full the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. (Dkt.#58). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objection to the Report and

Recommendation. (Dkt.#59). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Petition as untimely. (Dkt.#1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 29th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01952-MHM Document 60 Filed 08/30/07 Page 4 of 4