Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02516/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02516-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Gabriel Luz-Hernandez, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02516-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) submitted in this matter by 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on April 5, 2016. (Doc. 12.) In the R&R, Judge Fine 

recommended that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The time to object to the R&R has expired and 

Petitioner filed no objection, which entitles the Court to treat Petitioner as assenting to 

the adoption of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003). The Court nonetheless has conducted an independent review of the R&R on the 

merits, and upon so doing concludes it is appropriate to dismiss the Petition as untimely. 

 Petitioner’s Rule 32 proceeding for Post-Conviction Relief was dismissed June 5, 

2013, and from that date he had 35 days—until July 11, 2013—to petition the Arizona 

Court of Appeals for review of that decision. He did not seek review, so the one-year 

statute of limitations under AEDPA began running that day and expired July 10, 2014. 

Petitioner did not file his Petition until November 14, 2014, which was untimely by four 

months and four days. Judge Fine correctly concluded that statutory tolling was 

Case 2:14-cv-02516-JJT Document 13 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

inapplicable to this matter, and that Petitioner did not make the required showing for 

equitable tolling, as set forth in detail in her R&R. 

 For the reasons set forth above and in detail in the R&R, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) in whole. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition 

(Doc. 1), and directing the Clerk of the Court to close this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, upon the Court’s finding that Petitioner has not 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his claim for relief. 

 Dated this 9th day of May, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02516-JJT Document 13 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2