Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679-4/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

 The Court originally accepted and adopted the Report and

Recommendation on February 6, 2007, noting that the petitioner had not filed any

objection to the Report and Recommendation. The petitioner subsequently filed

a motion for reconsideration from the Court’s order and an appeal from the

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allace Lee Roy Cornellier, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2679-PHX-PGR (JM)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and

Recommendation, wherein she recommends in part that the petitioner’s

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

be dismissed with prejudice as being time-barred. Having reviewed the Report

and Recommendation de novo in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendations (doc. #28), the Court finds that the

petitioner’s objections should be overruled as being without legal merit and that

the Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that the amended petition

was filed over eight years after the limitations period of the AEDPA expired.1

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 32 Filed 10/04/07 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

Court’s judgment on the ground that he had never been served with a copy of the

Report and Recommendation. After the Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal to permit

the Court to resolve the motion for reconsideration, the Court entered an order on

June 7, 2007 that vacated its order and judgment based on the Report and

Recommendation and permitted the petitioner to object to the Report and

Recommendation, which he did on June 29, 2007. The Ninth Circuit entered an

order on August 24, 2007 that dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

- 2 -

First, the Court rejects the petitioner’s argument, raised in his objections,

that the AEDPA cannot be constitutionally applied to his amended petition. There

is no retroactivity issue here inasmuch as the AEDPA was in effect at the time

the petitioner initially filed his § 2254 petition on September 2, 2005. See

Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 1403 (2003) (Supreme

Court concluded that a case is not pending for purposes of the AEDPA until an

application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court and that any habeas

petition filed after the AEDPA’s effective date is subject to the AEDPA.)

Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner had

until April 24, 1997, one year after the AEDPA’s effective date, in which to file his

§ 2254 petition because he has not established that the limitations period should

be equitably tolled. The Court rejects the petitioner’s contention that the

limitations period should be tolled until the time of his parole hearing in January

2004 because it was not until then that he learned of the bases for his § 2254

petition. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s assertion that he could not have earlier

learned of his habeas claims because his numerous earlier attempts to obtain a

free copy of his criminal trial records had been repeated rejected, the Court

concurs with the Magistrate Judge that all of his claims in his amended petition

preexisted his 2004 parole hearing and all are based on evidence that was

available to him years prior to that time. Therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 32 Filed 10/04/07 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 -

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

(doc. #15) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Leave to

Request and Permit Discovery (doc. #13) and the petitioner’s Motion for an

Evidentiary Hearing (doc. #14) are both denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause

(doc. #31) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(doc. #4) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice as being

untimely filed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 32 Filed 10/04/07 Page 3 of 3