Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01871/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01871-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edwardo Jose Leyva, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV04-1871-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 2254

on September 8, 2004. Petitioner asserts eight grounds for relief, including that his plea was

involuntary, ineffective assistance of trial and post-conviction relief counsel, denial of equal

protection, cruel and unusual punishment, prosecutorial misconduct, and denial of the right

to appeal. Respondents answered on May 26, 2005 and Petitioner filed a reply on June 3,

2005. Respondents claim that the petition was untimely filed beyond the one-year statute of

limitations applicable for Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

On April 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the petition be dismissed because it was filed after the expiration of the

one-year statute of limitations. The procedural background and a detailed analysis of the

running and tolling of the statute of limitations is set out in the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner had until October 12, 1998, within which to

file his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and therefore, this petition was filed nearly six

years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed his objections to the

Case 2:04-cv-01871-SRB Document 46 Filed 06/08/06 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 -

Report and Recommendation on May 10, 2006. The objections deal with both the issue of

timeliness and the merits of the claims raised in the petition. Petitioner argues that his claim

of timeliness should be of "first impression" and appears to argue that because his conviction,

sentence and plea agreements should be considered null and void that somehow he should

not be subject to the one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner also appears to argue that the

Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that delays in the adjudication of his state petitions for

post-conviction relief should have a bearing on the running of the statute of limitations on

the grounds that he could not file a writ with an incomplete record. Finally, he argues that

he would not have had to file the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus if the Arizona

Superior Court had granted him relief. None of the arguments raised by the Petitioner in his

objections to the Report and Recommendation demonstrate in any way that his petition was

timely or that he is entitled to equitable tolling. 

The Court has reviewed the procedural record in this case and the analysis of that

record and the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds itself in agreement with the

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and concludes that the petition must

be dismissed with prejudice because it is untimely. Therefore;

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and

Recommendation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed

with prejudice and that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01871-SRB Document 46 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2