Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00320/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00320-0/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

DONNIE RAY MATTHEWS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

DORA B. SCHIRIRO, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-320-TUC-CKJ

 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a

Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed an

Answer and Petitioner has filed a Reply. Also pending before the Court are Petitioner's

Motion for Hearing [Doc. # 19], Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. # 19], Motion for

Discovery [Doc. # 27], Motion to Request Leave to File a Second Supplemental Pleading

[Doc. # 28], and a Motion to Request Leave to File a Traverse [Doc. # 36].

Factual and Procedural Background

On October 29, 1992, Petitioner Donnie Ray Matthews (“Matthews”) was

sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was twenty (20) years for

assault, aggravated assault, and kidnapping. Matthews apparently filed a pro per

document stating he waived his appeal rights; Matthews did not appeal at that time.

Respondents' Exhibit FF.

On or about November 1, 1993, the Pima County Superior Court dismissed

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 14
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

Matthews' November 29, 1993, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus indicates that a

petition was filed on September 13, 1993, and a petition was filed on October 22, 1993.

Respondents' Exhibit D, p. 13 of 22.

2

At times the Court refers to filing dates that are file-stamped on documents; at other

times the Court refers to the date a document was signed by Matthews. 

3

At different points in the documents, the person is referred to as Barbara Pollard,

Barbara Polland, and Barbara Rolland. Grand jury testimony cited by Matthews indicates

that the name is Barbara Pollard; thus, the Court will use that name in this Order.

- 2 -

Matthews' pro per petition for state habeas relief1

 with notice that Matthew should confer

with his attorney regarding appeal rights and post-conviction rights.

On or about November 29, 19932

, Matthews filed a second Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (False Imprisonment). On or about December 1, 1993, Matthews filed

an Order for Issuance, Service, and Return to Writ and an Order for Immediate

Production of Prisoner/and in the Alternative to Discharge Prisoner, Donnelle Ray

Matthews, from Unlawful Restraint. These documents requested Matthews' presence at

a hearing on the issues and sought relief on the grounds that Detective Matthew Wayne

Griffis committed perjury and had no personal knowledge when he testified before the

grand jury, Matthews was not provided with a preliminary hearing, the grand jury was

improperly drawn and sanctioned, the prosecutor engaged in ex parte communications,

Detective Cathy Rau committed perjury and had no personal knowledge when she

testified before the grand jury, prosecutorial misconduct, alleged victim Barbara Pollard3

did not testify against him, Justice of the Peace S. Hayes acted without jurisdiction and

violated the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (expedited the matter to the Pima

County Superior Court), Justice of the Peace Weber acted without jurisdiction and

violated the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (did not conduct preliminary

hearing), Judge James C. Carruth violated the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct by

violating Matthews' right to a speedy trial, Judge Carruth denied Matthews' petition for

writ of habeas corpus without the appearance of a court reporter, false imprisonment

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 14
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

The Court notes that Respondents' Exhibit M only includes every-other page of the

Arizona Court of Appeals' decision.

- 3 -

(based on unconstitutional entry and arrest and no preliminary hearing), Fourth

Amendment Violations, and Matthews was not timely brought before a magistrate.

Matthews also refers to waiving his right to appeal without being aware of what he was

doing. The record does not show a ruling on this petition.

On February 10, 1994, Matthew filed a federal habeas petition. On April 10, 1994,

that petition was dismissed without prejudice to allow Matthews to present his claims in

the state courts and to properly exhaust those claims.

On or about October 24, 1994, Matthews filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief

in the Pima County Superior Court. Matthews' request for post-conviction relief raised

the issues of unlawful entry to arrest and unlawful arrest (Fourth Amendment violations),

the grand jury was improperly drawn and sanctioned, infringement of Matthews' rights

against self-incrimination, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of Matthews' right to a

speedy trial, vindictive prosecution, use of perjured testimony, lack of jurisdiction,

unconstitutional amendment of the indictment, newly discovered evidence, including that

the alleged victim Barbara Pollard was actually Barbara Davis (who had an extensive

criminal history of alcohol abuse and forgery charges), sham representation by the Pima

County Public Defender's Office, Justice of the Peace did not conduct a preliminary

hearing and expedited the matter to the Pima County Superior Court, ex parte

communications between prosecutor and defense attorney, Matthews was never arrested

or booked for the charge of kidnapping, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, abuse of

discretion by Judge Carruth, and failure to appeal was without fault of Matthews. On

June 13, 1995, the trial court denied relief on three grounds: untimeliness, preclusion,

and the petition's contents were baseless. Matthews petitioned for review to the Court of

Appeals of Arizona. The Court of Appeals determined that the summary dismissal of the

petition was appropriate and granted review but denied relief.4

 On or about January 24,

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 14
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 -

1996, Matthews filed a Notice with a Motion to Consolidate Special Actions to PostConviction Application and Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration. On February

8, 1996, the Arizona Court of Appeals deemed this to be a motion for reconsideration and

denied relief. On February 15, 1996, Matthews petitioned for special action review of the

Arizona Court of Appeals' decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On February 23,

1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed the special action for lack of jurisdiction.

Matthews did not petition for review to the Supreme Court of Arizona and the mandate

appears to have been issued on March 7, 1996.

On or about April 4, 1996, Matthews filed another special action in the Arizona

Court of Appeals. On May 9, 1996, the special action was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction because Matthews was not seeking special action from an order of the

superior court.

On May 31, 1996, Matthews filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief, a

request for special action relief from the trial court, and other miscellaneous documents.

On July 1, 1996, and July 5, 1996, Matthews filed additional miscellaneous documents.

On August 7, 1996, the trial court, referring to "a volunminous amount of 'legal

pleadings'" and "largely unintelligible papers[,]" denied relief for the same reasons as set

forth in the June 13, 1995, order and the December 19, 1995, Arizona Court of Appeals'

opinion. Respondents' Exhibit X. On September 9, 1996, Matthews sought special action

relief from the August 7, 1996, order. The Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept

jurisdiction.

In February 1997, Matthews filed a third state habeas petition. On March 6, 1997,

the action was dismissed for failure to state claims upon which Matthews was entitled to

relief.

On April 30, 1997, Matthews filed a fourth state habeas petition and miscellaneous

documents. On May 23, 1997, the trial court treated the petition as a Petition for PostConviction Relief and dismissed it for the same reasons as set forth in the trial court's

June 3, 1995, August 7, 1996, and March 6, 1997, orders and the Arizona Court of

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 14
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

- 5 -

Appeals' December 19, 1995, opinion. After Matthews filed a request for appointment

of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings, the trial court, on June 26, 1997, reaffirmed its

May 23, 1997, order and denied relief.

Matthews appears to have filed a fifth state habeas petition and, on July 29, 1997,

the trial court dismissed the petition for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted and for advancing the same issues that had previously been disposed of by the

court.

Matthews appears to have filed a sixth state habeas petition and, on October 9,

1997, the trial court dismissed the petition because Matthews had not raised any new

claims in the petition.

On or about April 30, 1998, Matthews filed another Notice of Post-Conviction

Relief. On February 10, 1999, the trial court denied relief because Matthews had not

raised an issue that was within the scope of Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P, Arizona's postconviction relief rule.

On June 12, 1998, Matthews filed a petition for special action. On September 9,

1998, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction.

Matthews apparently filed another petition for special action; on November

18,1998, the Arizona Court of Appeals found the petition to be a frivolous filing, like the

seven previous filings that were deemed as frivolous with jurisdiction declined, and

ordered Matthews to file no further special actions without first moving for written

permission to do so.

On or about August 7, 2000, Matthews filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment. On

August 18, 2000, and August 31, 2000, the motion was denied as untimely and without

factual or legal basis, and because the issues were identical to those previously dismissed.

On or about August 11, 2000, Matthews filed his first direct review Notice of

Appeal. On October 9, 2000, Matthews petitioned for review in Arizona Court of

Appeals of the trial court's August 18, 2000, order, Matthews' September 18, 2000,

special action, and the trial court's June 13, 1995, denial of post-conviction relief. These

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 5 of 14
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

- 6 -

documents were filed under Matthews' appeal case number. On October 23, 2000, the

Arizona Court of Appeals granted the State's motion to dismiss (as untimely and without

jurisdiction).

Matthews appears to have filed a special action petition in the Pima County

Superior Court. On October 3, 2000, the trial court denied the petition because Matthews

had provided no additional law or facts that would justify granting the requested relief.

On August 13, 2001, Matthews filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Notice of Post-Conviction

Relief and accompanying documents. On October 24, 2001, the trial court summarily

denied relief because Matthews had failed to raise any material issue of fact or law.

On September 13, 2001, Matthews filed a petition for special action in the Arizona

Court of Appeals. On September 18, 2001, the Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the

petition with leave to re-file in conformity with the Arizona Rules of Procedure for

Special Actions 7. The mandate was issued on October 26, 2001.

On September 25, 2001, Matthews filed another petition for special action. The

Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction and, on April 1, 2002, the

Supreme Court of Arizona denied review.

On September 9, 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept

jurisdiction of another petition for special action. This petition is not included as part of

the record.

In March 2004, Matthews filed a motion for an extension of time to file a petition

for post-conviction relief, a motion for change of judge, and another state habeas petition.

On March 24, 2004, the trial court granted an extension of time, denied the motion for

change of judge, and found that the claims in the state habeas petition had already been

adjudicated and did not provide grounds for relief. Matthews filed a petition for special

action and, on April 27, 2004, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to accept

jurisdiction. The mandate was issued on July 22, 2004. 

On or about June 22, 2004, Matthews filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. 

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 6 of 14
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

- 7 -

In his Petition, Matthews sets forth four claims for relief. Matthews first asserts

that he was falsely imprisoned without legal process from the time of his arrest to the time

of sentence. In making this claim, Matthews asserts that he was unlawfully arrested,

unlawful grand jury practices were employed, Matthews was unlawfully stripped of his

constitutional rights to a preliminary hearing, and a twelve year old conviction was

unlawfully used to aggravate his sentence. Matthews' second claim asserts that he was

convicted on false and fabricated evidence. Matthews asserts in his third claim that he

was denied legal counsel. Matthews asserts that he was not provided the assistance of an

attorney at his arraignment and that appointed counsel Harriette Levitt and Geoffrey

Cheadle provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Matthews further asserts that he was

denied effective assistance of counsel during appeal and post-conviction relief

proceedings. In his fourth claim, Matthews asserts that he was denied a right to an equal

opportunity to the courts and to appeal by denying Matthews transcripts and records and

by denying Matthews the appointment of counsel. On or about June 30, 2004, Matthews

filed a Supplement to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, accompanying affidavit, and

exhibits. On or about January 28, 2005, Matthew filed a Supplement to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in which he asserts a claim that the prosecution failed to disclose

exculpatory evidence to the defense.

On or about December 10, 2004, Matthews filed a Request for Evidentiary Hearing

and to Appoint Legal Counsel. After setting forth arguments to support his claims for

habeas relief, Matthews indicated that his request would be supplemented. On January

18, 2005, Matthews filed a Supplemental to Request for Evidentiary Hearing and to

Appoint Legal Counsel. This document also set forth arguments to support Matthews'

claims for habeas relief. A response has not been filed.

On or about February 3, 2005, Matthews filed a Request for Discovery. Matthews

supplemented this request on or about February 16, 2005.

On or about February 16, 2005, Matthews filed a Motion to Request Leave to File

a Second Supplemental Pleading. On or about February 26, 2005, Matthews filed a

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 7 of 14
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

- 8 -

Motion to Request Leave to File a Traverse and an accompanying Reply/Traverse.

On February 18, 2005, Respondents filed an Answer.

 Request for Evidentiary Hearing and to Appoint Legal Counsel

A determination of whether an evidentiary hearing is needed shall be made upon

review of the pleadings, transcripts, and record. Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Habeas

Corpus Cases Under § 2254. The Court having determined, infra, that the habeas petition

is untimely, an evidentiary hearing is not needed.

The right to counsel provisions of the Sixth Amendment do not apply in habeas

corpus proceedings. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert.

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Nonetheless, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) a district

court has discretion, when "the interests of justice so require," to appoint counsel for an

indigent defendant seeking relief under section 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In determining whether

the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel, the Court considers the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Matthews to articulate his claims pro

se. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). 

Matthews has raised four grounds in his Amended Petition: (1) the conviction was

obtained by the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unlawful arrest; failure to provide

a full and fair hearing on the Fourth Amendment claims; (2) Matthews was falsely

imprisoned in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) the

conviction was obtained by action of a grand jury that which was unconstitutionally

selected and impaneled in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and;

(4) Matthews was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments. In making his claims, Matthews has set forth the factual

allegations and legal arguments to support his claims. Petitioner has effectively

articulated his claims pro se. Moreover, as discussed infra, the Court does not find there

is a likelihood of success of the merits because the habeas petition is untimely. The

Court finds the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. 

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 8 of 14
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

- 9 -

Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery

Matthews has requested this Court to allow him to conduct discovery. Matthews

has not shown good cause for this Court to authorize discovery. Rule 6, Rules Governing

Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254. Moreover, this Court has determined, infra, that the

habeas petition is untimely; discovery is not warranted to proceed with an untimely

petition.

Motion for Leave to File Traverse

Matthews has filed a Motion to Request Leave to File a Second Supplemental

Pleading and a Motion to Request Leave to File a Traverse. In submitting his Motion to

Request Leave to File a Traverse, Matthews has submitted his Traverse. Respondents do

not oppose the motion. The Court accepts Matthews' Traverse.

Statute of Limitations

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

state prisoner must generally file a petition for writ of habeas corpus within one year

from the date upon which his judgment became final or the expiration of time for seeking

such review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Matthews did not appeal his October 29,

1992, conviction and sentence within the 20 days allotted under Rule 31.3(a),

Ariz.R.Crim.P. Matthews' judgment of conviction, therefore, became final when the 20-

day period during which Matthews could have, but did not, file a notice of appeal to the

Arizona Court of Appeals. See generally Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.

1999). Matthews' federal limitations period began running on AEDPA's effective date,

April 24, 1996, giving [Matthews] one year from that date (in the absence of tolling) to

file a federal habeas petition." Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 220-21, 122 S.Ct. 2134,

153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002). 

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 9 of 14
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

- 10 -

Statutory Tolling of Limitations Period

The limitations period is statutorily tolled during the time in which a "properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending" in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2);

Carey. 

A request for post-conviction relief is "properly filed" when its "delivery and

acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings" such

as "the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, and the court and office

in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee." Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-9,

121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). As long as a state procedure for filing a postconviction relief petition exists, "the petition is pending while the state court considers

it, whether the decision is ultimately on the merits or on procedural grounds." Chavis v.

LeMarque, 382 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). In Carey, the United States Supreme Court

held the statute of limitations is tolled where a petitioner is properly pursuing

post-conviction relief, and the period is tolled during the intervals between one state

court's disposition of a habeas petition and the filing of a habeas petition at the next level

of the state court system. 536 U.S. at 214-15, 122 S.Ct. at 2135-36; see also Nino v.

Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104, 120 S.Ct. 1846,

146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000); Welch v. Newland, 267 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.2001) ("tolled

period includes intervals between the disposition of a state court petition and the filing

of a subsequent petition at the next state appellate level"); Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d

1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the "AEDPA's one-year grace period is tolled

during the pendency of properly filed state petitions challenging the judgment or claim

at issue."); cf. Dils v. Small, 260 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 2001) (Court found no tolling

between consecutive filings at the same level).

The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to determine whether a habeas petitioner

is entitled to statutory tolling of the period between the denial of a first post-conviction

relief petition "and the commencement of his next series of petitions":

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 10 of 14
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

5

In Arizona, post-conviction relief procedures have been consolidated into one

comprehensive post-conviction remedy. Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P., Comment. A prisoner

seeking to attack the constitutionality of his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a

direct review appeal or a petition for post-conviction relief. Rules 31 and 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P.;

State v. Sandon, 161 Ariz. 157, 158, 777 P.2d 220, 221 (1989). 

- 11 -

First, we ask whether the petitioner's subsequent petitions are limited to an

elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in the first petition. If not, these

petitions constitute a "new round" and the gap between the rounds is not tolled.

Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003). But if the petitioner simply

attempted to correct the deficiencies, then the petitioner is still making "proper use

of state court procedures," Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999),

and his application is still "pending" for tolling purposes. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 220, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002) ("until the application

has achieved final resolution through the State's post-conviction procedures, by

definition it remains 'pending'"). We thus construe the new petitions as part of the

first "full round" of collateral review. Carey, 536 U.S. at 222, 122 S.Ct. 2134. We

then ask whether they were ultimately denied on the merits or deemed untimely.

Id.. In the former event, the time gap between the petitions is tolled; in the latter

event it is not.

King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (second series of petitions made no

attempt to correct prior petition; second series of petitions were treated as a separate

round).

Presenting federal claims in a state habeas corpus petition does not constitute "fair

presentation" to the state courts under Arizona law. Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36,

38 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the proposition that filing a state

habeas petition constitutes a fair presentation of a federal claim "[b]ecause Rule 32 now

explicitly provides a post-conviction remedy for jurisdictional challenges, and because

the Arizona legislature and the courts have shown a clear preference that claims

cognizable under Rule 32 be presented in a Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief

rather than a petition for habeas corpus[.]" Id., citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346,

351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989).5

Similarly, the "state habeas petition is like Arizona's special action petition; it is

solely a method for obtaining extraordinary relief." Rivera-Sanchez v. Crist, 832 F.Supp.

276, 281 (D.Ariz. 1993), citations and internal quotations omitted (“habeas corpus is not

intended to serve as a means for a defendant to obtain successive appeals, and all issues

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 11 of 14
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

- 12 -

which were raised by a defendant on appeal or which might have been raised on appeal

are precluded”). Therefore, a special action petition is not a "properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment

or claim [that] is pending"' in the state courts under § 2244(d)(2) and Carey, 536 U.S. at

220-21.

Arguably, Matthews' November 29, 1993, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(False Imprisonment) was pending on April 24, 1996, the beginning of Matthews' oneyear statute of limitations period – the record does not show that this Petition has ever

been specifically ruled upon. However, Matthews' presentation of federal claims in a

state habeas corpus petition did not constitute a "fair presentation" to the state courts

under Arizona law. Roettgen. This petition, therefore, did not constitute a properly filed

application for State post-conviction or other collateral review. See e.g., Castille, 489

U.S. at 351 (denying "fair presentation" when "the claim has been presented for the first

and only time in a procedural context in which its merits will not be considered unless

there are special and important reasons therefore"). Moreover, Matthews' first Petition

for Post-Conviction Relief included the claims set forth in the November 29, 1993,

petition. The trial court's June 13, 1995, denial of Matthews' petition for post-conviction

relief and the appellate review of that denial, therefore, resolved all of the pre-judgment

issues of the November 29, 1993, petition. This action did not toll the AEDPA's statute

of limitations.

On April 24, 1996, a petition for special action (filed on April 4, 1996) was

pending. On May 9, 1996, the special action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the

Arizona Court of Appeals because Matthews was not seeking special action relief from

an order of the superior court. This petition did not constitute a properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review. See e.g., Rivera-Sanchez and

Castille. The statute of limitations was not tolled while this action was pending.

On May 31, 1996, July 1, 1996, and July 5, 1996, Matthews filed a second Notice

of Post-Conviction Relief and other miscellaneous documents. On August 7, 1996, the

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 12 of 14
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

- 13 -

trial court denied relief for the same reasons as set forth in the June 13, 1995, order and

the December 19, 1995, Arizona Court of Appeals' opinion. The June 13, 1995, order

denied relief on the grounds that the petition was untimely, the majority of the claims

were precluded under Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P., and the petition's contents were baseless.

The Arizona Court of Appeals' opinion concurred with the trial court's assessment of the

claims and the summary dismissal of the petition. On September 9, 1996, Matthews

sought special action relief from the August 7, 1996, order. The Arizona Court of

Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction. Because the trial court rejected Matthews'

second petition for post-conviction relief on timeliness grounds, the statute of limitations

was not tolled during this period. King, 340 F.3d at 823; Chavis, 382 F.3d at 927; Welch,

350 F.3d at 1081-84; Delhomme v. Ramirez, 340 F.3d 817, 820-21 (9th Cir. 2003); Biggs,

339 F.3d at 1048. 

In February 1997, Matthews filed another state habeas petition. On March 6, 1997,

the trial court found that Matthews' documentation was basically indistinguishable from

Matthews' previous filings and the action was summarily dismissed for failure to state

claims upon which Matthews was entitled to relief. The presentation of the claims in a

state habeas corpus petition in Arizona does not constitute "fair presentation". Roettgen,

33 F.3d at 38. Indeed, the claims were a repetition of prior filing rather than an

elaboration of facts relating to claims in a prior petition. King, 340 F.3d at 823. The

statute of limitations was not tolled during this period.

Equitable Tolling of Limitations Period

Similarly, Matthews has failed to establish any period of equitable tolling during

this time period. Gaston v. Palmer, 2005 WL 1803261 (9th Cir. 8/2/2005) (habeas

petitioner has the burden to show that equitable tolling is appropriate). Equitable tolling

is not available in most cases, "as extensions of time will only be granted if extraordinary

circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time."

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063,

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 13 of 14
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

- 14 -

1066 (9th Cir. 2002) ("the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling [under the

AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule").

Conclusion

Matthews' limitations period to file a federal habeas petition began running on the

AEDPA's effective date, April 24, 1996. Matthews is not entitled to statutory or equitable

tolling through April 24, 1997. On April 24, 1997, therefore, Matthews' one-year statute

of limitations within which to file a federal habeas petition expired. Matthews did not file

the instant federal habeas petition until June 22, 2004. This habeas action is time-barred.

The action will be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Motion for Hearing [Doc. # 19] is DENIED;

2. The Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. # 19] is DENIED;

3. The Motion for Discovery [Doc. # 27] is DENIED;

4. The Motion to Request Leave to File a Second Supplemental Pleading [Doc.

# 28] is GRANTED;

5. The Motion to Request Leave to File a Traverse [Doc. # 36] is GRANTED;

6. Matthews' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

is DENIED;

7. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice, and;

8. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in

this matter.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2005.

Case 4:04-cv-00320-CKJ Document 41 Filed 09/30/05 Page 14 of 14