Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_01-cv-00543/USCOURTS-azd-3_01-cv-00543-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Lloyd Bryant, )

)

Petitioner, ) No. CV-01-0543-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER and CERTIFICATE

Dora Schriro, ) OF APPEALABILITY

)

Respondents. )

 )

Pending before the Court is petitioner Steven Lloyd Bryant's Request for

Certificate of Appealability (doc. #104), wherein the petitioner seeks to have the

Court certify the following issue for appeal: "Was Petitioner's habeas corpus petition

timely because the one-year statute of limitations was either statutorily or equitably

tolled." Having considered the request in light of the petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the Court's order (doc. #101)

denying the petition as time-barred, the Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to

a limited certificate of appealability.

Since the Court dismissed the petitioner's § 2254 petition on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner shows

Case 3:01-cv-00543-PGR Document 105 Filed 06/01/06 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 -

(1) that reasonable judges would find it debatable whether the Court was correct in

its procedural ruling, and (2) that reasonable judges would find it debatable whether

the § 2254 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Rosas

v. Neilsen, 428 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court concludes that the only issue

presented by the petitioner that meets both of these requirements is the limited issue

of whether the one-year limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act (AEDPA) should be tolled notwithstanding that the petitioner had access

to legal materials containing the provisions of the AEDPA's statute of limitations

because the Arizona Department of Corrections did not provide him with case law

interpreting and explaining the limitations period. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's Request for Certificate of Appealability

(doc. #104) is granted solely as to the issue of whether the limitations period of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was tolled by the Arizona Department

of Corrections' failure to provide the petitioner with case law interpreting and

explaining the limitations period.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 3:01-cv-00543-PGR Document 105 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2