Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01440/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01440-1/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

Ali Naeem Al-Zaidy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1440-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.

#1). On January 20, 2010, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a

Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Petition be dismissed because

it is barred by the statute of limitation. (Doc. #13). On February 5, 2010, the Petitioner filed

objections to the R&R. (Doc. #14).

I. Legal Standard

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge 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) (emphasis in original). Because Petitioner filed objections, this

Court will review de novo the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Petition in this case is

barred by the statute of limitation.

Case 2:09-cv-01440-JAT Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 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 -

II. Statute of Limitation

As the R&R correctly recounts, under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the Petitioner had one year from the date his conviction became final

to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. (Doc. #13 at 6). The Petitioner’s

conviction became final on March 30, 2000, thirty days after the Arizona Court of Appeals

dismissed his direct appeal on February 29, 2000. Id. at 7. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Petition

in this Court was due by March 30, 2001. The Petition was filed July 9, 2009. (Doc. #1).

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings on this issue, as neither party objects.

Therefore, the Petition is untimely unless Petitioner is entitled to tolling of the statute of

limitation until July 9, 2009.

A. Statutory Tolling

By statute, the Petitioner is entitled to statutory tolling during any period he had a

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

the pertinent judgment or claim . . . pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In this case, the statute

was immediately tolled because the Petitioner had filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief

on November 12, 1999, which was still pending review at the time the Petitioner’s direct

appeal was dismissed. (Doc. #13 at 4, 8). The state court dismissed the Petitioner’s postconviction petition on May 26, 2000. Id. Therefore, the tolling period ended at that time and

the AEDPA limitation period began on May 27, 2000. Id. at 8. The AEDPA limitation period

thus expired on May 26, 2001, nearly eight years before the Petitioner filed his Petition. Id.

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings on this issue, as neither party objects.

Therefore, after considering statutory tolling, the Petition is still untimely.

B. Equitable Tolling

Next, the Court considers equitable tolling. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327,

336 (2007) (assuming without deciding that equitable tolling is available to habeas

petitioners). The Magistrate Judge concluded that equitable tolling was not available. (Doc.

#13 at 10!11). Petitioner objects to this conclusion.

Case 2:09-cv-01440-JAT Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 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

- 3 -

Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only by demonstrating “‘(1) that he has been

pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’

and prevented timely filing.” Lawrence, 549 U.S. at 336 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). To justify equitable tolling, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently. See id. at 336. The Petitioner fails to offer any

facts or arguments showing that he was pursuing his rights diligently during the period

between May 26, 2001 and July 9, 2009. 

To show extraordinary circumstances, the Petitioner alleges that for an unknown period

he was in some type of isolated alternative confinement outside of the Arizona Department

of Corrections where he was questioned about possible involvement with the Iraqi Army.

(Doc. #14 at 3). However, the Petitioner offers no proof of this confinement and gives no

dates to show how much of the time between May 26, 2001 and July 9, 2009 he claims he was

held there. It is also unclear whether and how this confinement actually prevented the

Petitioner from timely filing his Petition. 

Because the Petitioner fails to meet his burden of proving that he has been pursuing

his rights diligently and that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his

Petition, the Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to equitable tolling for the

approximately eight years necessary for his Petition to be timely.. 

V. Conclusion

Because the Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling, the last date that he could

have timely filed his Petition was May 26, 2001. This Petition is therefore untimely. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

13) is ACCEPTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. # 1) is DENIED; and

Case 2:09-cv-01440-JAT Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Objections (Doc. #14) are overruled, and the

Petition (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because it is barred by the statute

of limitations and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by

a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01440-JAT Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 4