Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01119/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01119-1/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

1

 Under the AEDPA, the plaintiff had until April 10, 2001 to file his habeas

petition, but he did not file it until June 3, 2011. Because the petition was not timely

filed, the Court cannot resolve the merits of the petition.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny El Rybolt,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-01119-PHX-PGR (DKD)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Duncan in light of the petitioner’s Objection to the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 41) and

the petitioner’s various other post-Report and Recommendation submissions, the

Court finds that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred because it was filed over

ten years after the expiration of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations1

 and the

Case 2:11-cv-01119-PGR Document 51 Filed 03/04/13 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

2

 The petitioner is not entitled to equitably tolling because he has not met his

heavy burden of showing that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and that

some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented him from timely

filing his habeas petition. Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010).

- 2 -

petitioner has not shown that the limitations period should be equitably tolled.2

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 36) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Reverse and

Vacate as Judgment is Void-Rule 6(c)(4) (Doc. 31), motion to remove or strike lines

6-7 of page 2 of the Report and Recommendation (Docs. 39 & 40), Motion for

Judgment of Acquittal - Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29(a) (Docs. 42 & 46),

Motion for a Franks Hearing Then a Judgment of Acquittal (Docs. 42 & 46), Motion

for Compulsory Process as a Constitutional Right of Petitioner/Full Disclosure of

Accounting Because of Fraud on Court (Docs. 44 & 49), Motion in Form of

Declaration and Subpoena A.D.O.C. Records from I&I and or S.S.U. from 1998-1999

(Docs. 45 & 48), and Motion for Remedy for Injury and Damages (Doc. 50) are all

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

of the peitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

Case 2:11-cv-01119-PGR Document 51 Filed 03/04/13 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

- 3 -

accordingly.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01119-PGR Document 51 Filed 03/04/13 Page 3 of 3