Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01313/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01313-1/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 

Phillip Morris,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01313-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

On July 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 

Recommendation in which she recommended that the Pro Se Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. (Doc. 27.) The Report and Recommendation 

found that the Petition was untimely because it was not filed until October 7, 2013. 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the Petition 

should have been filed no later than one year from September 13, 2011, which is the date 

when Petitioner’s conviction became final. (Id. at 3-4.) The Report and 

Recommendation also concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling for 

the late filed Post-Conviction Relief Petition. (Id. at 4-6.) 

The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had fourteen days 

to file any objections. No objections have been filed. 

 The Court reviews de novo any objected-to portions of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for 

clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. 

Case 4:13-cv-01313-CKJ Document 28 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also, Conley v. Crabtree, 14 

F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

The Court has reviewed and considered the Pro Se Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Limited Answer to the Petition1

; the exhibits, and 

the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds no error. 

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Pro Se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is 

DENIED. 

Dated this 12th day of August, 2016. 

Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson

United States District Judge 

 

1

 Petitioner filed no reply. 

Case 4:13-cv-01313-CKJ Document 28 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 2